linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 1/9] rcu: Add call_rcu

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: <53DF41ED.2020508@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 Aug 2014 16:18:53 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <mingo@...nel.org>,
	<dipankar@...ibm.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>, <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	<fweisbec@...il.com>, <oleg@...hat.com>, <bobby.prani@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 1/9] rcu: Add call_rcu_tasks()

On 08/04/2014 03:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 09:28:45AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> On 08/01/2014 05:55 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> +		rcu_read_lock();
>>> +		for_each_process_thread(g, t) {
>>> +			if (t != current && ACCESS_ONCE(t->on_rq) &&
>>> +			    !is_idle_task(t)) {
>>> +				get_task_struct(t);
>>> +				t->rcu_tasks_nvcsw = ACCESS_ONCE(t->nvcsw);
>>> +				ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_tasks_holdout) = 1;
>>> +				list_add(&t->rcu_tasks_holdout_list,
>>> +					 &rcu_tasks_holdouts);
>>
>> This loop will collect all the runnable tasks.  It is too much tasks.
>> Is it possible to collect only on_cpu tasks or PREEMPT_ACTIVE tasks?
>> It seems hard to achieve it.
> 
> Without taking the rq->lock you cannot do that race-free. And we're not
> going to be taking rq->lock here.

It is because we can't fetch task->on_cpu and preempt_count atomically
so that rq->lock is required.

3 bleeding solutions:

1) Allocate one bit in preempt_count to stand for not_on_cpu ( = !task->on_cpu)
2) allocate one bit in nvcsw to stand for on_scheduled (or not_on_scheduled, see next)
3) introduce task->on_scheduled whose semantics is between on_cpu and on_rq,
   on_scheduled = scheduled on cpu or preempted, (not voluntary scheduled out)

But the scheduler doesn't need neither of such things.  So these is still no hope.
--
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/