linux-kernel - [PATCH v6 tip/core/rcu 03/17] rcu: Add synchronous grace-period waiting for RCU-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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1408120125-30479-3-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Aug 2014 09:28:31 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	bobby.prani@...il.com,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH v6 tip/core/rcu 03/17] rcu: Add synchronous grace-period waiting for RCU-tasks

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

It turns out to be easier to add the synchronous grace-period waiting
functions to RCU-tasks than to work around their absense in rcutorture,
so this commit adds them.  The key point is that the existence of
call_rcu_tasks() means that rcutorture needs an rcu_barrier_tasks().

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 include/linux/rcupdate.h |  2 ++
 kernel/rcu/update.c      | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 41db3fca1e7f..ec939440cdb9 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -216,6 +216,8 @@ void synchronize_sched(void);
  * memory ordering guarantees.
  */
 void call_rcu_tasks(struct rcu_head *head, void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head));
+void synchronize_rcu_tasks(void);
+void rcu_barrier_tasks(void);
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
 
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
index 647cca7611f9..c3b459f758d6 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
@@ -384,6 +384,61 @@ void call_rcu_tasks(struct rcu_head *rhp, void (*func)(struct rcu_head *rhp))
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu_tasks);
 
+/**
+ * synchronize_rcu_tasks - wait until an rcu-tasks grace period has elapsed.
+ *
+ * Control will return to the caller some time after a full rcu-tasks
+ * grace period has elapsed, in other words after all currently
+ * executing rcu-tasks read-side critical sections have elapsed.  These
+ * read-side critical sections are delimited by calls to schedule(),
+ * cond_resched_rcu_qs(), idle execution, userspace execution, calls
+ * to synchronize_rcu_tasks(), and (in theory, anyway) cond_resched().
+ *
+ * This is a very specialized primitive, intended only for a few uses in
+ * tracing and other situations requiring manipulation of function
+ * preambles and profiling hooks.  The synchronize_rcu_tasks() function
+ * is not (yet) intended for heavy use from multiple CPUs.
+ *
+ * Note that this guarantee implies further memory-ordering guarantees.
+ * On systems with more than one CPU, when synchronize_rcu_tasks() returns,
+ * each CPU is guaranteed to have executed a full memory barrier since the
+ * end of its last RCU-tasks read-side critical section whose beginning
+ * preceded the call to synchronize_rcu_tasks().  In addition, each CPU
+ * having an RCU-tasks read-side critical section that extends beyond
+ * the return from synchronize_rcu_tasks() is guaranteed to have executed
+ * a full memory barrier after the beginning of synchronize_rcu_tasks()
+ * and before the beginning of that RCU-tasks read-side critical section.
+ * Note that these guarantees include CPUs that are offline, idle, or
+ * executing in user mode, as well as CPUs that are executing in the kernel.
+ *
+ * Furthermore, if CPU A invoked synchronize_rcu_tasks(), which returned
+ * to its caller on CPU B, then both CPU A and CPU B are guaranteed
+ * to have executed a full memory barrier during the execution of
+ * synchronize_rcu_tasks() -- even if CPU A and CPU B are the same CPU
+ * (but again only if the system has more than one CPU).
+ */
+void synchronize_rcu_tasks(void)
+{
+	/* Complain if the scheduler has not started.  */
+	rcu_lockdep_assert(!rcu_scheduler_active,
+			   "synchronize_rcu_tasks called too soon");
+
+	/* Wait for the grace period. */
+	wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu_tasks);
+}
+
+/**
+ * rcu_barrier_tasks - Wait for in-flight call_rcu_tasks() callbacks.
+ *
+ * Although the current implementation is guaranteed to wait, it is not
+ * obligated to, for example, if there are no pending callbacks.
+ */
+void rcu_barrier_tasks(void)
+{
+	/* There is only one callback queue, so this is easy.  ;-) */
+	synchronize_rcu_tasks();
+}
+
 /* See if the current task has stopped holding out, remove from list if so. */
 static void check_holdout_task(struct task_struct *t)
 {
-- 
1.8.1.5

--
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/