linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] Optimize the cpu hotplug locking -v2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:13:05 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Optimize the cpu hotplug locking -v2

On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:53:37 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 09:43:55AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > But we would like to remove stomp machine from
> > > CPU hotplug.
> > 
> > We do?  That's news.  It wasn't mentioned in the changelog and should
> > have been.  Why?  
> 
> It would be an unrelated change to this and unrelated to the reasons as
> to why I want a faster get_online_cpus().

Yeah, sorry for the confusion. My comment wasn't really about this
change set but about stop machine and hotplug in general. Needing stop
machine for hotplug has been a complaint by many, but off topic for
this particular change set.

> 
> > > Why prevent all CPUs from running when we want to remove
> > > one?
> > 
> > So get_online_cpus() goes away.  Nothing is more scalable than nothing!
> 
> Very much agreed; now stop_machine() wouldn't actually work for hotplug
> because it will instantly preempt everybody, including someone who might
> be in the middle of using per-cpu state of the cpu we're about to
> remove.

Well, stop machine doesn't instantly preempt everybody. Only those that
don't have preemption disabled. Using per_cpu without preemption
disabled can be dangerous. Except for the migrate disable we want to
add for -rt. Then we can't rely on migrate disable and stop machine
making sure per_cpu data isn't being used. Oh, and for threads that use
per_cpu that are bound to a CPU. But then they need to be taken care of
too for their CPU going off line.

But this would also require the "get_online_cpu()s" to disable
preemption as well. Not quite a "nothing" we are looking for.

-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/