linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/13] rcu: Fix unraised IPI to timekeeping CPU

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: <20131218141348.GA18464@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:13:52 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.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 05/13] rcu: Fix unraised IPI to timekeeping CPU

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 03:21:00PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:51:24PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > The plan with full system idle detection is to allow the timekeeper
> > to sleep when all full dynticks CPUs are sleeping.
> > 
> > Then when a full dynticks CPU wakes up while the whole system is idle,
> > it sends an IPI to the timekeeping CPU which then restarts its tick
> > and polls on its timekeeping duty on behalf of all other CPUs in the
> > system.
> > 
> > But we are using rcu_kick_nohz_cpu() to raise this IPI, which is wrong
> > because this function is used to kick full dynticks CPUs when they run
> > in the kernel for too long without reporting a quiescent state. And
> > this function ignores targets that are not full dynticks, like our
> > timekeeper.
> > 
> > To fix this, use the smp_send_reschedule() function directly.
> 
> I guess the fact that you needed some change is reassuring.  You know
> the old saying, "no bugs, no users".  ;-)

;-)

> 
> > 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>
> > ---
> >  kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > index 08004da..84d90c8 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > @@ -2488,7 +2488,7 @@ void rcu_sysidle_force_exit(void)
> >  				      oldstate, RCU_SYSIDLE_NOT);
> >  		if (oldstate == newoldstate &&
> >  		    oldstate == RCU_SYSIDLE_FULL_NOTED) {
> > -			rcu_kick_nohz_cpu(tick_do_timer_cpu);
> > +			smp_send_reschedule(tick_do_timer_cpu);
> 
> Hmmm...
> 
> We haven't done any sort of wakeup, and tick_nohz_full_cpu() should
> return false for tick_do_timer_cpu, and I don't see that we have
> done anything to make got_nohz_idle_kick() return true.
> 
> So the idea is that the fact of the interrupt is sufficient, and
> the target CPU will figure out that it must turn its scheduling-clock
> interrupt when returning from interrupt?

Exactly, the interrupt alone is sufficient and the tick is reevaluated
on irq_exit().

> 
> Or is something else going on here?
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> >  			return; /* We cleared it, done! */
> >  		}
> >  		oldstate = newoldstate;
> > -- 
> > 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/