linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] sched: Add smp

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]

Message-ID: <20150217121258.GM5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:12:58 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, oleg@...hat.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] sched: Add smp_rmb() in task rq locking
 cycles

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 01:47:01PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> 
> We migrate a task using TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING state of on_rq:
> 
> 	raw_spin_lock(&old_rq->lock);
> 	deactivate_task(old_rq, p, 0);
> 	p->on_rq = TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING;
> 	set_task_cpu(p, new_cpu);
> 	raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> 
> I.e.:
> 
> 	write TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING
> 	smp_wmb() (in __set_task_cpu)
> 	write new_cpu
> 
> But {,__}task_rq_lock() don't use smp_rmb(), and they may see
> the cpu and TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING in opposite order. In this case
> {,__}task_rq_lock() lock new_rq before the task is actually queued
> on it.

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index fc12a1d..a42fb88 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -319,8 +319,12 @@ static struct rq *task_rq_lock(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long *flags)
>  		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, *flags);
>  		rq = task_rq(p);
>  		raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> -		if (likely(rq == task_rq(p) && !task_on_rq_migrating(p)))
> -			return rq;
> +		if (likely(rq == task_rq(p))) {
> +			/* Pairs with smp_wmb() in __set_task_cpu() */

That comment really is insufficient; but aside from that:

If we observe the old cpu value we've just acquired the old rq->lock and
therefore we must observe the new cpu value and retry -- we don't care
about the migrate value in this case.

If we observe the new cpu value, we've acquired the new rq->lock and its
ACQUIRE will pair with the WMB to ensure we see the migrate value.

So I think the current code is correct; albeit it could use a comment.

> +			smp_rmb();
> +			if (likely(!task_on_rq_migrating(p)))
> +				return rq;
> +		}


---
Subject: sched: Clarify ordering between task_rq_lock() and move_queued_task()
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Date: Tue Feb 17 13:07:38 CET 2015

There was a wee bit of confusion around the exact ordering here;
clarify things.

Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reported-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
---
 kernel/sched/core.c |   16 ++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)

--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -341,6 +341,22 @@ static struct rq *task_rq_lock(struct ta
 		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, *flags);
 		rq = task_rq(p);
 		raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
+		/*
+		 *	move_queued_task()		task_rq_lock()
+		 *
+		 *	ACQUIRE (rq->lock)
+		 *	[S] ->on_rq = MIGRATING		[L] rq = task_rq()
+		 *	WMB (__set_task_cpu())		ACQUIRE (rq->lock);
+		 *	[S] ->cpu = new_cpu		[L] task_rq()
+		 *					[L] ->on_rq
+		 *	RELEASE (rq->lock)
+		 *
+		 * If we observe the old cpu in task_rq_lock, the acquire of
+		 * the old rq->lock will fully serialize against the stores.
+		 *
+		 * If we observe the new cpu in task_rq_lock, the acquire will
+		 * pair with the WMB to ensure we must then also see migrating.
+		 */
 		if (likely(rq == task_rq(p) && !task_on_rq_migrating(p)))
 			return rq;
 		raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
--
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/