linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.19-rc5

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 6 Feb 2015 17:39:47 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Bruno Prémont <bonbons@...ux-vserver.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ilya Dryomov <ilya.dryomov@...tank.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.19-rc5

On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 08:02:41AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Also, set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING) is almost always pointless, nobody
> > cares about that barrier, so make it go away.
> 
> I'd rather not mix this with the patch, and wonder if we should just
> do that globally with some preprocessor magic. We do have a fair
> number of "set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING)" 

138

> and at least for the
> *documented* reason for the memory barrier, all of them could/should
> be barrier-less.
> 
> So something like
> 
>     if (__is_constant_p(state) && state == TASK_RUNNING)
>         tsk->state = state;
>     else
>         set_mb(tsk->state, state);
> 
> might be more general solution than randomly doing one at a time when
> changing code around it..

Yeah, or we could do the coccinelle thing and do a mass conversion.

I like the macro one though; I worry a wee bit about non-documented
cases through. If someone is doing something way subtle we'll break it
:/


---
Subject: sched: Avoid the full memory-barrier for set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING)

One should never need the full memory barrier implied by
set_current_state() to set TASK_RUNNING for the documented reason of
avoiding races against wakeup.

Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
---
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 8db31ef98d2f..aea44c4eeed8 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -243,6 +243,27 @@ extern char ___assert_task_state[1 - 2*!!(
 				((task->state & TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) != 0 && \
 				 (task->flags & PF_FROZEN) == 0)
 
+/*
+ * set_current_state() includes a barrier so that the write of current->state
+ * is correctly serialised wrt the caller's subsequent test of whether to
+ * actually sleep:
+ *
+ *	set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
+ *	if (do_i_need_to_sleep())
+ *		schedule();
+ *
+ * If the caller does not need such serialisation then use
+ * __set_current_state(). This is always true for TASK_RUNNING since
+ * there is no race against wakeup -- both write the same value.
+ */
+#define ___set_current_state(state)				\
+do {								\
+	if (__is_constant_p(state) && (state) == TASK_RUNNING)	\
+		current->state = (state);			\
+	else							\
+		set_mb(current->state, (state));		\
+} while (0)
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
 
 #define __set_task_state(tsk, state_value)			\
@@ -256,17 +277,6 @@ extern char ___assert_task_state[1 - 2*!!(
 		set_mb((tsk)->state, (state_value));		\
 	} while (0)
 
-/*
- * set_current_state() includes a barrier so that the write of current->state
- * is correctly serialised wrt the caller's subsequent test of whether to
- * actually sleep:
- *
- *	set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
- *	if (do_i_need_to_sleep())
- *		schedule();
- *
- * If the caller does not need such serialisation then use __set_current_state()
- */
 #define __set_current_state(state_value)			\
 	do {							\
 		current->task_state_change = _THIS_IP_;		\
@@ -275,7 +285,7 @@ extern char ___assert_task_state[1 - 2*!!(
 #define set_current_state(state_value)				\
 	do {							\
 		current->task_state_change = _THIS_IP_;		\
-		set_mb(current->state, (state_value));		\
+		___set_current_state(state_value);		\
 	} while (0)
 
 #else
@@ -285,21 +295,10 @@ extern char ___assert_task_state[1 - 2*!!(
 #define set_task_state(tsk, state_value)		\
 	set_mb((tsk)->state, (state_value))
 
-/*
- * set_current_state() includes a barrier so that the write of current->state
- * is correctly serialised wrt the caller's subsequent test of whether to
- * actually sleep:
- *
- *	set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
- *	if (do_i_need_to_sleep())
- *		schedule();
- *
- * If the caller does not need such serialisation then use __set_current_state()
- */
 #define __set_current_state(state_value)		\
 	do { current->state = (state_value); } while (0)
 #define set_current_state(state_value)			\
-	set_mb(current->state, (state_value))
+	___set_current_state(state_value);
 
 #endif
 


--
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/