linux-kernel - Re: kernel/timer: avoid spurious ksoftirqd wakeups

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:	Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:53:28 -0300
From:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: kernel/timer: avoid spurious ksoftirqd wakeups

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 09:58:26AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 04/01/2015 09:44 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> 
> > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> > @@ -568,6 +568,7 @@ static ktime_t tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick(struct tick_sched *ts,
> >  	unsigned long rcu_delta_jiffies;
> >  	struct clock_event_device *dev = __this_cpu_read(tick_cpu_device.evtdev);
> >  	u64 time_delta;
> > +	bool raise_softirq;
> 
> You may want to initialize this to false. Nothing else
> in the code ever seems to set it to false.
> 
> It may work in your test due to that address on the stack
> already being zeroed out due to a lucky coincidence, but
> that is not a guarantee.
> 
> > --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> > +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> > @@ -1343,7 +1343,7 @@ static unsigned long cmp_next_hrtimer_event(unsigned long now,
> >   * get_next_timer_interrupt - return the jiffy of the next pending timer
> >   * @now: current time (in jiffies)
> >   */
> > -unsigned long get_next_timer_interrupt(unsigned long now)
> > +unsigned long get_next_timer_interrupt(unsigned long now, bool *raise_softirq)
> >  {
> >  	struct tvec_base *base = __this_cpu_read(tvec_bases);
> >  	unsigned long expires = now + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA;
> > @@ -1357,6 +1357,7 @@ unsigned long get_next_timer_interrupt(unsigned long now)
> >  
> >  	spin_lock(&base->lock);
> >  	if (base->active_timers) {
> > +		*raise_softirq = true;
> >  		if (time_before_eq(base->next_timer, base->timer_jiffies))
> >  			base->next_timer = __next_timer_interrupt(base);
> >  		expires = base->next_timer;
> 
> Given that run_timer_softirq() only actually does something
> if the timer has expired, would it make sense to only raise
> the softirq after the timer has expired?

jiffies might be increased by tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick.

So you'd have to test again after increasing jiffies.


--
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/