linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/3] percpu-rwsem: introduce percpu_rw

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: <20150628235614.GA24454@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jun 2015 01:56:14 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tj@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, der.herr@...r.at, dave@...olabs.net,
	riel@...hat.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] percpu-rwsem: introduce percpu_rw_semaphore->recursive
	mode

On 06/24, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> So we need percpu_down_write_dont_block_readers(). I already thought
> about this before, I'll try to make the patch tomorrow on top of your
> changes.

Never say tomorrow...

> This means that we do not need task_struct->cpuhp_ref, but we can't
> avoid livelock we currently have: cpu_hotplug_begin() can never succeed
> if the new readers come fast enough.

Like with any other "recursive" lock.

Peter, I know you don't like the 1st patch. And yes, we could add another
mutex into percpu_rw_semaphore instead. But I think it would be better
to rely on rcu_sync_enter(). As for completion, we can remove it later.
Nevermind, the actual change is 3/3 and it looks simple.

Oleg.

--
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/