linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] sched: Fix missing preemption opportunity

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:	Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:13:53 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] sched: Fix missing preemption opportunity


I picked up the patch; will drop it if Ingo also does ;-)

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 06:08:04PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2877,6 +2877,21 @@ void __sched schedule_preempt_disabled(void)
>  	preempt_disable();
>  }
>  
> +static void preempt_schedule_common(void)
> +{
> +	do {
> +		__preempt_count_add(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> +		__schedule();
> +		__preempt_count_sub(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Check again in case we missed a preemption opportunity
> +		 * between schedule and now.
> +		 */
> +		barrier();

I do however wonder about this barrier() here; why do we think we need
it?

Is that because test_bit() it 'broken'? The bitops are typically atomic
ops and atomic reads should be through a volatile cast (x86
constant_test_bit doesn't seem to do this).

Should we go audit and fix that?

> +	} while (need_resched());
> +}
--
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/