linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 12/13] nohz: Allow all CPUs outside nohz

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:	Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:32:28 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] nohz: Allow all CPUs outside nohz_full range to do
 timekeeping

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:51:31PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Now that we have all the infrastructure in place and ready to support
> timekeeping duty balanced across every non full dynticks CPUs, we can
> hereby extend the timekeeping duty affinity.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
> Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>
> Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>
> ---
>  include/linux/tick.h | 10 +---------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/tick.h b/include/linux/tick.h
> index bd3c32e..07c02e8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/tick.h
> +++ b/include/linux/tick.h
> @@ -203,15 +203,7 @@ static inline int tick_timekeeping_default_cpu(void)
>   */
>  static inline bool tick_timekeeping_cpu(int cpu)
>  {
> -	/*
> -	 * If there are full dynticks CPUs around,
> -	 * CPU 0 must stay periodic to update timekeeping.
> -	 */
> -	if (tick_nohz_full_enabled())
> -		return cpu == 0;
> -
> -	/* Otherwise any CPU is elligible for timekeeping duty */
> -	return true;
> +	return !tick_nohz_full_cpu(cpu);

OK, I guess the future is already here.  ;-)

Is it still OK for RCU to kick tick_do_timer_cpu?  Or are there race
conditions that could result in the wrong CPU being kicked?  Or is
there some guarantee that I missed that says that the timekeeping
CPU cannot change while in RCU_SYSIDLE_FULL_NOTED state?

							Thanx, Paul

>  }
> 
>  extern void tick_nohz_init(void);
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
> 

--
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/