linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND/RFC] timer: make deferrable cpu unbound timers really not bound to a cpu

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 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:	Tue, 23 Sep 2014 20:33:34 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Joonwoo Park <joonwoop@...eaurora.org>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND/RFC] timer: make deferrable cpu unbound timers
 really not bound to a cpu

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Joonwoo Park wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +static struct tvec_base *tvec_base_deferral = &boot_tvec_bases;
> +#endif

In principle I like the idea of a deferrable wheel, but this
implementation is going to go nowhere.

First of all making it SMP only is silly. The deferrable stuff is a
pain in other places as well.

But whats way worse is:

> +static inline void __run_timers(struct tvec_base *base, bool try)
>  {
>  	struct timer_list *timer;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
> +	if (!try)
> +		spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
> +	else if (!spin_trylock_irq(&base->lock))
> +		return;

Yuck. All cpus fighting about a single spinlock roughly at the same
time? You just created a proper thundering herd cacheline bouncing
issue. 

No way. We have already mechanisms in place to deal with such
problems, you just have to use them.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/