linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 UPDATEDv3 3/3] CPU hotplug, smp: Flush any pending IPI callbacks before CPU offline

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: <537B309C.7000100@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 May 2014 16:08:20 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, hch@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de,
	riel@...hat.com, bp@...e.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	mgalbraith@...e.de, ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 UPDATEDv3 3/3] CPU hotplug, smp: Flush any pending
 IPI callbacks before CPU offline

On 05/20/2014 04:01 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 05/20/2014 03:55 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 03:39:59PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>> The multi_cpu_stop() path isn't exclusive to hotplug, so your changelog
>>>> is wrong or the patch is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I know that multi_cpu_stop() isn't exclusive to hotplug. That's why
>>> I have explicitly referred to CPU hotplug in the comment as well as the
>>> changelog.
>>>
>>> But I totally agree that code-wise this is not the best way to do it since
>>> this affects (although harmlessly) usecases other than hotplug as well.
>>>
>>> Do you have any other suggestions?
>>
>> How about making a kernel/smp.c hotplug notifier and stuffing it in the
>> CPU_DYING list? That's typically after we've already torn down the
>> interrupts for that cpu, so no chance of any new ones coming in.
>>
>> Or is that too late?
>>
> 
> No, that should work just fine. Thank you for the suggestion! I'll give
> it a shot.
> 

The only problem will be that CPU_DYING notifiers are run after marking
the CPU offline, and hence the warning will trigger. We can avoid that by
defining a __generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt() that doesn't
check for cpu_online(smp_processor_id) and call this function from the
hotplug notifier.


Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
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/