linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/16] rcu: Remove redundant check for online cpu

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: <CAJhHMCA4Fdd4JbtKdNGABFYRBCqaLukLbydLAFA-3RiZXaTngA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:11:45 -0400
From:	Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
To:	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	"open list:READ-COPY UPDATE..." <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/16] rcu: Remove redundant check for online cpu

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:12:54AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 08:59:06AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>> >> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 01:09:46AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> >> >> There are two checks for an online CPU if two if() conditions. This commit
>> >> >> simplies this by replacing it with only one check for the online CPU.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
>> >> >
>> >> > I admit that it is very early in the morning my time, but I don't see
>> >> > this change as preserving the semantics in all cases.  Please recheck
>> >> > your changes to the second check.
>> >> >
>> >> >                                                         Thanx, Paul
>> >>
>> >> I guess you must be thrown off by the complementary checks, the first
>> >> check is for cpu_online() and second is for cpu_is_offline(). :)
>> >>
>> >> Previously, if a cpu is offline, the first condition is false and the
>> >> second condition is true, so we return from the second if() condition.
>> >> The same semantics are being preserved.
>> >
>> > Fair enough!
>> >
>> > Nevertheless, I am not seeing this as a simplification.
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean here, do you mean that both the checks are
>> actually required?
>
> I mean that the current compound tests each mean something.  Pulling out
> the offline test adds lines of code and obscures that meaning.   This means
> that it is easier (for me, anyway) to see why the current code is correct
> than it is to see why your suggested change is correct.
>

That is a valid point. I did not mean to reduce readability of the
code. Just trying to avoid the overhead of smp_processor_id().

Not sure if you would prefer this, but how about the following?

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index f1ba773..3a26008 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -2516,15 +2516,16 @@ static void __call_rcu_core(struct rcu_state
*rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
 {
        bool needwake;

+       bool awake = cpu_online(smp_processor_id);
        /*
         * If called from an extended quiescent state, invoke the RCU
         * core in order to force a re-evaluation of RCU's idleness.
         */
-       if (!rcu_is_watching() && cpu_online(smp_processor_id()))
+       if (!rcu_is_watching() && awake)
                invoke_rcu_core();

        /* If interrupts were disabled or CPU offline, don't invoke RCU core. */
-       if (irqs_disabled_flags(flags) || cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id()))
+       if (irqs_disabled_flags(flags) || !awake)
                return;

        /*


>
>> >> --
>> >> Pranith.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> ---
>> >> >>  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 9 ++++++---
>> >> >>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>> >> >> index 5dcbf36..8d598a2 100644
>> >> >> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>> >> >> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>> >> >> @@ -2602,15 +2602,18 @@ static void __call_rcu_core(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
>> >> >>  {
>> >> >>       bool needwake;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> +     if (!cpu_online(smp_processor_id()))
>> >> >> +             return;
>> >> >> +
>> >> >>       /*
>> >> >>        * If called from an extended quiescent state, invoke the RCU
>> >> >>        * core in order to force a re-evaluation of RCU's idleness.
>> >> >>        */
>> >> >> -     if (!rcu_is_watching() && cpu_online(smp_processor_id()))
>> >> >> +     if (!rcu_is_watching())
>> >> >>               invoke_rcu_core();
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -     /* If interrupts were disabled or CPU offline, don't invoke RCU core. */
>> >> >> -     if (irqs_disabled_flags(flags) || cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id()))
>> >> >> +     /* If interrupts were disabled, don't invoke RCU core. */
>> >> >> +     if (irqs_disabled_flags(flags))
>> >> >>               return;
>> >> >>
>> >> >>       /*
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> 2.0.0.rc2
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Pranith
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pranith
>>
>



-- 
Pranith
--
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/