linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] workqueue: Allow modifying low level unbound workqueue cpumask

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: <20140516205050.GM5379@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Fri, 16 May 2014 16:50:50 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] workqueue: Allow modifying low level unbound
 workqueue cpumask

Hello, Frederic.

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 06:16:55PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> @@ -3643,6 +3643,7 @@ static int apply_workqueue_attrs_locked(struct workqueue_struct *wq,
>  {
>  	struct workqueue_attrs *new_attrs, *tmp_attrs;
>  	struct pool_workqueue **pwq_tbl, *dfl_pwq;
> +	cpumask_var_t saved_cpumask;
>  	int node, ret;
>  
>  	/* only unbound workqueues can change attributes */
> @@ -3653,15 +3654,25 @@ static int apply_workqueue_attrs_locked(struct workqueue_struct *wq,
>  	if (WARN_ON((wq->flags & __WQ_ORDERED) && !attrs->no_numa))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> +	if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&saved_cpumask, GFP_KERNEL))
> +		goto enomem;
> +
>  	pwq_tbl = kzalloc(wq_numa_tbl_len * sizeof(pwq_tbl[0]), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	new_attrs = alloc_workqueue_attrs(GFP_KERNEL);
>  	tmp_attrs = alloc_workqueue_attrs(GFP_KERNEL);
> +
>  	if (!pwq_tbl || !new_attrs || !tmp_attrs)
>  		goto enomem;
>  
>  	/* make a copy of @attrs and sanitize it */
>  	copy_workqueue_attrs(new_attrs, attrs);
> -	cpumask_and(new_attrs->cpumask, new_attrs->cpumask, unbounds_cpumask);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Apply unbounds_cpumask on the new attrs for pwq and worker pools
> +	 * creation but save the wq proper cpumask for unbound attrs backup.
> +	 */
> +	cpumask_and(saved_cpumask, new_attrs->cpumask, cpu_possible_mask);
> +	cpumask_and(new_attrs->cpumask, saved_cpumask, unbounds_cpumask);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * We may create multiple pwqs with differing cpumasks.  Make a
> @@ -3693,6 +3704,7 @@ static int apply_workqueue_attrs_locked(struct workqueue_struct *wq,
>  	/* all pwqs have been created successfully, let's install'em */
>  	mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
>  
> +	cpumask_copy(new_attrs->cpumask, saved_cpumask);
>  	copy_workqueue_attrs(wq->unbound_attrs, new_attrs);

Yeah, this seems like the correct behavior but it's a bit nasty.
Wouldn't creating another application copy be cleaner?  If not, can we
at least add more comment explaining why we're doing this?
Hmmmm... shouldn't we be able to apply the mask to tmp_attrs?

Also, isn't the code block involving wq_calc_node_cpumask() kinda
broken for this?  It uses @attrs which is not masked by
@unbounds_cpumask.  This used to be okay as whatever it calculates
would fall in @cpu_possible_mask anyway but that no longer is the
case, right?

Another one, why is @unbounds_cpumask passed in as an argument?  Can't
it use the global variable directly?

> +static int unbounds_cpumask_apply(cpumask_var_t cpumask)
> +{
> +	struct workqueue_struct *wq;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&wq_pool_mutex);
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry(wq, &workqueues, list) {
> +		struct workqueue_attrs *attrs;
> +
> +		if (!(wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND))
> +			continue;
> +
> +		attrs = wq_sysfs_prep_attrs(wq);
> +		if (!attrs)
> +			return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +		ret = apply_workqueue_attrs_locked(wq, attrs, cpumask);
> +		free_workqueue_attrs(attrs);
> +		if (ret)
> +			break;
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static ssize_t unbounds_cpumask_store(struct device *dev,
> +				      struct device_attribute *attr,
> +				      const char *buf, size_t count)
> +{
> +	cpumask_var_t cpumask;
> +	int ret = -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&cpumask, GFP_KERNEL))
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	ret = cpumask_parse(buf, cpumask);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	get_online_cpus();
> +	if (cpumask_intersects(cpumask, cpu_online_mask)) {
> +		mutex_lock(&wq_pool_mutex);
> +		ret = unbounds_cpumask_apply(cpumask);
> +		if (ret < 0) {
> +			/* Warn if rollback itself fails */
> +			WARN_ON_ONCE(unbounds_cpumask_apply(wq_unbound_cpumask));

Hmmm... but there's nothing which makes rolling back more likely to
succeed compared to the original applications.  It's gonna allocate
more pwqs.  Triggering WARN_ON_ONCE() seems weird.

That said, yeah, short of splitting apply_workqueue_attrs_locked()
into two stages - alloc and commit, I don't think proper error
recovery is possible.

There are a couple options, I guess.

1. Split apply_workqueue_attrs_locked() into two stages.  The first
   stage creates new pwqs as necessary and cache it.  Each @wq would
   need a pointer to remember these staged pwq_tbl.  The second stage
   commits them, which obviously can't fail.

2. Proper error handling is hard.  Just do pr_warn() on each failure
   and continue to try to apply and always return 0.

If #1 isn't too complicated (would it be?), it'd be the better option;
otherwise, well, #2 should work most of the time, eh?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/