linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 14/16] rcu: Remove redundant preempt_disable() from rcu_note_voluntary_context

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]

Date:	Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:33:10 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, 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 v5 tip/core/rcu 14/16] rcu: Remove redundant
 preempt_disable() from rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch()

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 07:07:51AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:56:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:49:03PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > 
> > > In theory, synchronize_sched() requires a read-side critical section to
> > > order against.  In practice, preemption can be thought of as being
> > > disabled across every machine instruction.  So this commit removes
> > > the redundant preempt_disable() from rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch().
> > 
> > >  #define rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch(t) \
> > >  	do { \
> > > -		preempt_disable(); /* Exclude synchronize_sched(); */ \
> > >  		if (ACCESS_ONCE((t)->rcu_tasks_holdout)) \
> > >  			ACCESS_ONCE((t)->rcu_tasks_holdout) = 0; \
> > > -		preempt_enable(); \
> > >  	} while (0)
> > 
> > But that's more than 1 instruction.
> 
> Yeah, the commit log could use some help.  The instruction in question
> is the store.  The "if" is just an optimization.
> 
> So suppose that this sequence is preempted between the "if" and the store,
> and that the synchronize_sched() (and quite a bit more besides!) takes
> place during this preemption.  The task is still in a quiescent state
> at the time of the store, so the store is still legitimate.
> 
> That said, it might be better to just leave preemption disabled, as that
> certainly makes things simpler.  Thoughts?

A comment explaining it should be fine I think. I was just raising the
obvious fail in the changelog.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped