linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Rework check_for

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: <20140623102457.GW19860@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:24:57 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	tkhai@...dex.ru, Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Konstantin Khorenko <khorenko@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Rework check_for_tasks()

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 05:24:22PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> 
> 1)Iterate throw all of threads in the system.

	thru

>   Check for all threads, not only for group leaders.
> 
> 2)Check for p->on_rq instead of p->state and cputime.
>   Preempted task in !TASK_RUNNING state  OR just
>   created task may be queued, that we want to be
>   reported too.
> 
> 3)Use read_lock() instead of write_lock().
>   This function does not change any structures, and
>   read_lock() is enough.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
> CC: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> CC: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> ---
>  kernel/cpu.c |   33 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> index a343bde..81e2a38 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -274,21 +274,28 @@ void clear_tasks_mm_cpumask(int cpu)
>  	rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
>  
> -static inline void check_for_tasks(int cpu)
> +static inline void check_for_tasks(int dead_cpu)
>  {
> -	struct task_struct *p;
> -	cputime_t utime, stime;
> +	struct task_struct *g, *p;
>  
> -	write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> -	for_each_process(p) {
> -		task_cputime(p, &utime, &stime);
> -		if (task_cpu(p) == cpu && p->state == TASK_RUNNING &&
> -		    (utime || stime))
> -			pr_warn("Task %s (pid = %d) is on cpu %d (state = %ld, flags = %x)\n",
> -				p->comm, task_pid_nr(p), cpu,
> -				p->state, p->flags);
> -	}
> -	write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> +	read_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> +	do_each_thread(g, p) {
> +		if (!p->on_rq)
> +			continue;
> +		/*
> +		 * We do the check with unlocked task_rq(p)->lock.
> +		 * Order the reading to do not warn about a task,
> +		 * which was running on this cpu in the past, and
> +		 * it's just been woken on another cpu.
> +		 */
> +		rmb();

		smp_rmb();

> +		if (task_cpu(p) != dead_cpu)
> +			continue;

But because we don't have rq->lock held, we can be in the middle of a
wakeup and miss a task.

Then again, I suppose anything without rq->lock can and will miss tasks.

> +		pr_warn("Task %s (pid=%d) is on cpu %d (state=%ld, flags=%x)\n",
> +			p->comm, task_pid_nr(p), dead_cpu, p->state, p->flags);
> +	} while_each_thread(g, p);
> +	read_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
>  }
>  
>  struct take_cpu_down_param {
> 
> 
> 
--
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/