linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] context_tracking: Inherit TIF_NOHZ through forks instead of context switches

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]

Message-ID: <20150421152600.GE3182@worktop.meeting.verilan.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:26:00 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] context_tracking: Inherit TIF_NOHZ through forks
 instead of context switches

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 02:23:07PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> +void __init context_tracking_cpu_set(int cpu)
>  {
> +	static __initdata bool initialized = false;
> +	struct task_struct *p, *t;
> +
> +	if (!per_cpu(context_tracking.active, cpu)) {
> +		per_cpu(context_tracking.active, cpu) = true;
> +		static_key_slow_inc(&context_tracking_enabled);
> +	}
> +
> +	if (initialized)
> +		return;
> +
> +	set_tsk_thread_flag(&init_task, TIF_NOHZ);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * There shouldn't be any thread at this early boot stage
> +	 * but the scheduler is ready to host any. So lets walk
> +	 * the tasklist just in case. tasklist_lock isn't necessary
> +	 * either that early but take it for correctness checkers.
> +	 */
> +	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> +	for_each_process_thread(p, t)
> +		set_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_NOHZ);

If there should not be any task, should there not be a WARN_ON_ONCE()
here?

> +	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> +
> +	initialized = true;
>  }
--
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/