linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Add rcu_sync infrastructure to avoid

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:29:48 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Add rcu_sync infrastructure to avoid
	_expedited() in percpu-rwsem

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:52:15PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/26, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On 08/25, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 05:34:31PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I booted the kernel with the additional patch below, and nothing bad has
> > > > happened, it continues to print
> > > >
> > > > 	Writes:  Total: 2  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> > > > 	Reads :  Total: 2  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> > > >
> > > > However, I do not know what this code actually does, so currently I have
> > > > no idea if this test makes any sense for percpu_rw_semaphore.
> > >
> > > Actually, unless I am really confused, that does not look good...
> > >
> > > I would expect something like this, from a run with rwsem_lock:
> > >
> > > 	[   16.336057] Writes:  Total: 473  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> > > 	[   16.337615] Reads :  Total: 219  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> > > 	[   31.338152] Writes:  Total: 959  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> > > 	[   31.339114] Reads :  Total: 437  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> > > 	[   46.340167] Writes:  Total: 1365  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> > > 	[   46.341952] Reads :  Total: 653  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> > > 	[   61.343027] Writes:  Total: 1795  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> > > 	[   61.343968] Reads :  Total: 865  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> > > 	[   76.344034] Writes:  Total: 2220  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> > > 	[   76.345243] Reads :  Total: 1071  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> > >
> > > The "Total" should increase for writes and for reads -- if you are
> > > just seeing "Total: 2" over and over, that indicates that either
> > > the torture test or rcu_sync got stuck somewhere.
> >
> > Hmm. I reverted the change in locktorture.c , and I see the same
> > numbers when I boot the kernel with
> >
> > 	locktorture.verbose=1 locktorture.torture_type=rwsem_lock
> >
> > parameters.
> >
> > 	Writes:  Total: 2  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> > 	Reads :  Total: 2  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> >
> > "Total" doesn't grow. Looks like something is wrong with locktorture.
> > I'll try to re-check...
> 
> Heh ;) torture threads spin in stutter_wait(). Added another parameter,
> 
> 	locktorture.torture_runnable=1
> 
> now I see the similar numbers
> 
> 	Writes:  Total: 1242  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> 	Reads :  Total: 892  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> 	Writes:  Total: 2485  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> 	Reads :  Total: 1796  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> 	Writes:  Total: 3786  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> 	Reads :  Total: 2713  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> 	Writes:  Total: 5045  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> 	Reads :  Total: 3636  Max/Min: 0/0   Fail: 0
> 
> with or without s/rw_semaphore/percpu_rw_semaphore/ change in locktorture.c

Whew!!!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/