linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] stop_machine: kill stop_cpus_mutex and stop_cpus

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, 26 Jun 2015 14:23:30 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tj@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
	der.herr@...r.at, dave@...olabs.net, riel@...hat.com,
	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] stop_machine: kill stop_cpus_mutex and
 stop_cpus_lock

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 04:14:55AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Not sure.
> 
> And note that this series kills stop_cpus_mutex, so that multiple
> stop_cpus()'s / stop_machine()'s can run in parallel if cpumask's
> do not overlap.
> 
> Note also the changelog in 6/6, we can simplify + optimize this code
> a bit more.
> 
> What do you think?

The problem I have with this is that it makes the better operation
(stop_two_cpus) slower while improving the worse operation (stop_cpus).

I would much prefer to keep stop_two_cpus() as proposed with taking two
cpu_stopper::lock instances and replacing the stop_cpu_mutex with a
percpu-rwsem.
--
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/