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]

Message-ID: <20131011204827.GX3657@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 11 Oct 2013 22:48:27 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	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>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Optimize the cpu hotplug locking -v2

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 08:25:07PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > As a penance I'll start by removing all get_online_cpus() usage from the
> > scheduler.
> 
> I only looked at the change in setaffinity,
> 
> > @@ -3706,7 +3707,6 @@ long sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid, const struct cpumask *in_mask)
> >  	struct task_struct *p;
> >  	int retval;
> >
> > -	get_online_cpus();
> >  	rcu_read_lock();
> 
> Hmm. In theory task_rq_lock() doesn't imply rcu-lock, so
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() can miss the change in cpu_active_mask. But this
> is probably fine, CPU_DYING does __migrate_task().

I'm fine with always doing sync_sched(); sync_rcu(); if that makes you
feel better. But I thought that assuming that !PREEMPT sync_rcu() would
imply sync_sched() was ok. I think the comment there even says as much.

And task_rq_lock() will very much disable preemption; and thus we get
what we want, right?

In any case; the goal was to make either RCU or preempt-disable
sufficient.

> However. This means that sched_setaffinity() can fail if it races with
> the failing cpu_down() (say, __cpu_notify(CPU_DOWN_PREPARE) fails).
> Probably we do not really care, just this looks a bit confusing.

Couldn't be bothered; failing hotplug will have side-effects any which
way.

> > @@ -3814,7 +3813,6 @@ long sched_getaffinity(pid_t pid, struct cpumask *mask)
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> >  	int retval;
> >
> > -	get_online_cpus();
> 
> This change is probably fine in any case?

Yes.

> >  	rcu_read_lock();
> >
> >  	retval = -ESRCH;
> > @@ -3827,12 +3825,11 @@ long sched_getaffinity(pid_t pid, struct cpumask *mask)
> >  		goto out_unlock;
> >
> >  	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
> > -	cpumask_and(mask, &p->cpus_allowed, cpu_online_mask);
> > +	cpumask_and(mask, &p->cpus_allowed, cpu_active_mask);
> 
> But I am just curious, is this change is strictly needed?

No; we could do without. It really doesn't matter much if anything. I
only did it because sched_setaffinity()->set_cpus_allowed_ptr() checks
against active, not online. And had a sudden urge to make get/set
symmetric -- totally pointless otherwise.
--
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/