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  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]
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:43:15 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <>
To:	Pranith Kumar <>
Cc:	Josh Triplett <>,
	Steven Rostedt <>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <>,
	Lai Jiangshan <>,
	"open list:READ-COPY UPDATE..." <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] rcu: Check for spurious wakeup using return value

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:36:19PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> <> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 01:09:48AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> >> When the gp_kthread wakes up from the wait event, it returns 0 if the wake up is
> >> due to the condition having been met. This commit checks this return value
> >> for a spurious wake up before calling rcu_gp_init().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <>
> >
> > How does this added check help?  I don't see that it does.  If the flag
> > is set, we want to wake up.  If we get a spurious wakeup, but then the
> > flag gets set before we actually wake up, we still want to wake up.
> So I took a look at the docs again, and using the return value is the
> recommended way to check for spurious wakeups.
> The condition in wait_event_interruptible() is checked when the task
> is woken up (either due to stray signals or explicitly) and it returns
> true if condition evaluates to true.
> In the current scenario, if we get a spurious wakeup, we take the
> costly path of checking this condition again (with a barrier and lock)
> before going back to wait.
> The scenario of getting an actual wakeup after getting a spurious
> wakeup exists even today, this is the window after detecting a
> spurious wakeup and before going back to wait. I am not sure if using
> the return value enlarges that window as we are going back to sleep
> immediately.
> Thoughts?

If the flag is set, why should we care whether or not the wakeup was
spurious?  If the flag is not set, why should we care whether or not
wait_event_interruptible() thought that the wakeup was not spurious?

							Thanx, Paul

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists