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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:31:59 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <>
To:	Mike Galbraith <>
Cc:	Jason Wang <>,,,,, Ingo Molnar <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: exit busy loop when another process is

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 07:01:05AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > +++ b/include/net/busy_poll.h
> > @@ -109,7 +109,8 @@ static inline bool sk_busy_loop(struct sock *sk, int nonblock)
> >  		cpu_relax();
> >  
> >  	} while (!nonblock && skb_queue_empty(&sk->sk_receive_queue) &&
> > -		 !need_resched() && !busy_loop_timeout(end_time));
> > +		 !need_resched() && !busy_loop_timeout(end_time) &&
> > +		 nr_running_this_cpu() < 2);
> >  

So as has been said by now; this is horrible.

We should not export nr_running like this ever. Your usage of < 2
implies this can be hit with nr_running == 0, and therefore you can also
hit it with nr_running == 1 where the one is not network related and you
get random delays.

Worse still, you have BH (and thereby preemption) disabled, you should
not _ever_ have undefined and indefinite waits like that.

You also destroy any hope of dropping into lower power states; even when
there's never going to be a packet ever again, also bad.

All in all, a complete trainwreck.

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