linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: sched: dev_deactivate_many(): use msleep(1) instead of yield() to wait for outstanding qdisc

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: <1396437459.3989.39.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Wed, 02 Apr 2014 04:17:39 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ben@...adent.org.uk,
	mkl@...gutronix.de,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: sched: dev_deactivate_many(): use msleep(1)
 instead of yield() to wait for outstanding qdisc_run callsb

On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 13:07 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:49:16PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > >> The intent of a yield() call, like this one here, is unambiguously
> > > >> that the current thread cannot do anything until some other thread
> > > >> gets onto the cpu and makes forward progress.
> 
> Yeah; like Thomas said; that's not what yield() does -- or can do.
> 
> yield() only says 'I don't know what to do, you figure it out', but then
> fails to provide enough information to actually do something sensible.
> 
> It cannot put the task to sleep; because it doesn't pair with a wakeup;
> and therefore the task stays an eligible/runnable task from a scheduler
> pov.
> 
> The scheduler is therefore entirely in its right to pick this task
> again; and pretty much has to under many circumstances.
> 
> yield() does not, and can not, guarantee forward progress - ever.
> 
> Use wait_event() and assorted bits to wait for an actual event. That is
> a sleep paired with a wakeup and thus has progress guarantees.

Why wouldn't it be safe to redefine yield as msleep(1) ?

net/ipv4/tcp_output.c seems to also use yield().


                /* Socket is locked, keep trying until memory is available. */
                for (;;) {
                        skb = alloc_skb_fclone(MAX_TCP_HEADER,
                                               sk->sk_allocation);
                        if (skb)
                                break;
                        yield();
                }


--
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/