linux-kernel - Re: Another preempt folding issue?

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: <20140214114926.GB15586@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:49:26 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@...onical.com>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	MASAO TAKAHASHI <masao-takahashi@...no.co.jp>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: Another preempt folding issue?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:24:42PM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
> Oh and one thing I was wondering. Not sure I do understand it right... When
> initially converting to percpu counts, you changed the 32bit assembly like that:
> 
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S
> @@ -362,12 +362,9 @@ END(ret_from_exception)
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
>  ENTRY(resume_kernel)
>         DISABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_ANY)
> -       cmpl $0,TI_preempt_count(%ebp)  # non-zero preempt_count ?
> -       jnz restore_all
>  need_resched:
> -       movl TI_flags(%ebp), %ecx       # need_resched set ?
> -       testb $_TIF_NEED_RESCHED, %cl
> -       jz restore_all
> +       cmpl $0,PER_CPU_VAR(__preempt_count)
> +       jnz restore_all
>         testl $X86_EFLAGS_IF,PT_EFLAGS(%esp)    # interrupts off (exception path
>         jz restore_all
>         call preempt_schedule_irq
> 
> This seems to say if preempt_count was 0 then then if the thread flag was set
> and interrupts were not off(?) it would do a preempt ipi and then come back to
> re-check the thread flag.

No not an IPI; it would reschedule.

So the old code:

  if preempt_count != 0; continue out
  if !TIF_NEED_RESCHED; continue out
  if IRQs-off in calling context; continue out
  preempt_schedule_irq

The new code:

  if preempt_count != 0; continue out
  if IRQs-off in calling context; continue out
  preempt_schedule_irq

> This would now be if preempt_count is 0 only... and I wonder whether that would
> change from doing that loop...

We can do away with the TIF_NEED_RESCHED test because that state is
folded into the preempt_count by means of PREEMPT_NEED_RESCHED.


--
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/