linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 15/16] rcu: Make RCU-tasks wait for idle tasks

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 16:43:42 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	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, 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 15/16] rcu: Make RCU-tasks wait for idle
 tasks

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:13:01AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:07:05 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:51:32AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > > I still need to look at the patches, but if this is just for the idle
> > > case, then we don't need it. The idle case can be solved with a simple
> > > sched_on_each_cpu(). I need a way to solve waiting for processes to
> > > finish from a preemption point.
> > > 
> > > That's all I want, and if we can remove the "idle" case and document it
> > > well that it's not covered and a sched_on_each_cpu() may be needed,
> > > then I'm fine with that.
> > > 
> > > 	sched_on_each_cpu(dummy_op);
> > > 	call_rcu_tasks(free_tramp);
> > 
> > Sure, but why not dtrt and push rcu_idle hooks all the way down into the
> > idle drivers if and where appropriate?
> > 
> > There isn't _that_ much idle driver code. Also, some stuff should be
> > cleaned up; we're already calling stop_critical_timings() in the generic
> > idle code, and then calling it again in the cpuidle drivers.
> > 
> > 
> 
> True, perhaps the rcu code should hook into the stop_critical_timings
> code?

Not sure; the current proposal would have rcu_idle code be far narrower
than the critical_timings thing, not sure if that's an accident or
desired.

If they have similar requirements we could indeed merge them.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped