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:	Mon, 28 Jul 2014 23:03:06 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <>
To:	Pranith Kumar <>
Cc:	Paul McKenney <>,
	LKML <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Lai Jiangshan <>,
	Dipankar Sarma <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <>,
	Josh Triplett <>,,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Steven Rostedt <>,
	David Howells <>,
	Eric Dumazet <>,,
	Oleg Nesterov <>,
	Sasha Levin <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Fix attempt to avoid offloading
 callbacks unless requested

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 09:51:52PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Frederic Weisbecker
> <> wrote:
> >> I understand that if CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL is set then CONFIG_NOCB_CPU_ALL
> >> will also be set and there is no need for this cpumask_or().
> >>
> >> Is there any reason for the coupling between CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL
> >
> > Yeah, for any nohz full CPU, we need the corresponding CPU to be rcu_nocb.
> > So if all CPUs are full dynticks, all CPUs must be rcunocb.
> >
> > That said with this patch, the dependency is perhaps not needed anymore.
> >
> >>
> >> I ask because a user can override CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL=y at boot time
> >> using the nohz_full= boot time parameter.
> >
> > No, the content of nohz_full= is ignored with CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL=y.
> >
> Please correct me if I am wrong but that does not seem to be the case.
> If a boot parameter is passed, we are setting up tick_nohz_full_mask
> from tick_nohz_full_setup() and marking tick_nohz_full_running as true.
> Later on we check this flag and skip the CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL
> initialization.

You're right, I missed the tick_nohz_full_running check :)

So if nohz_full is passed, we ignore CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL. That looks like
the right behaviour though.

Paul what do you think? If we keep that behaviour, Maybe you could blindly do
rcu_nocb_mask |= tick_nohz_full and remove the CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL dependency
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