| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150827012828.9471.qmail@ns.horizon.com>
Date: 26 Aug 2015 21:28:28 -0400
From: "George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com>
To: jason.low2@...com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...izon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] timer: Reduce unnecessary sighand lock contention
> I can include your patch in the series and then use boolean for the new
> checking_timer field. However, it looks like this applies on an old
> kernel. For example, the spin_lock field has already been removed from
> the structure.
Apologies; that was 4.1.6. A 4.2-rc8 patch is appended (it's a pretty
trivial merge once you look at it).
> The spinlock call has already been removed from a previous patch. The
> issue now is with contention with the sighand lock.
I'll look some more and try to wrap my head around it.
>> Or is it basically okay if this is massively racey, since process-wide
>> CPU timers are inherently sloppy. A race will just cause an expiration
>> check to be missed, but it will be retried soon anyway.
> Yes, the worst case scenario is that we wait until the next thread to
> come along and handle the next expired timer. However, this "delay"
> already occurs now (for example: a timer can expire right after a thread
> exits check_process_timers()).
Ad is this polled, or is there some non-polled system that will trigger
another call to check_process_timers().
E.g. suppose a process fails to notice that it blew past a CPU time
timeout before blocking. Does anything guarantee that it will get
the timeout signal in finite real time?
>From 95349f9b16c30aea518ce79d72e8e0f0c5d12069 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:15:54 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] timer: Use bool more in kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
This is mostly function return values, for documentation.
One structure field is changed (from int), but alignment
padding precludes any actual space saving.
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 04b5ada4..0cd80f76 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -607,7 +607,7 @@ struct task_cputime_atomic {
/**
* struct thread_group_cputimer - thread group interval timer counts
* @cputime_atomic: atomic thread group interval timers.
- * @running: non-zero when there are timers running and
+ * @running: %true when there are timers running and
* @cputime receives updates.
*
* This structure contains the version of task_cputime, above, that is
@@ -615,7 +615,7 @@ struct task_cputime_atomic {
*/
struct thread_group_cputimer {
struct task_cputime_atomic cputime_atomic;
- int running;
+ bool running;
};
#include <linux/rwsem.h>
diff --git a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
index 892e3dae..106368c5 100644
--- a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
+++ b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
@@ -113,14 +113,12 @@ static void bump_cpu_timer(struct k_itimer *timer,
*
* @cputime: The struct to compare.
*
- * Checks @cputime to see if all fields are zero. Returns true if all fields
- * are zero, false if any field is nonzero.
+ * Checks @cputime to see if all fields are zero. Returns %true if all fields
+ * are zero, %false if any field is nonzero.
*/
-static inline int task_cputime_zero(const struct task_cputime *cputime)
+static inline bool task_cputime_zero(const struct task_cputime *cputime)
{
- if (!cputime->utime && !cputime->stime && !cputime->sum_exec_runtime)
- return 1;
- return 0;
+ return !cputime->utime && !cputime->stime && !cputime->sum_exec_runtime;
}
static inline unsigned long long prof_ticks(struct task_struct *p)
@@ -249,7 +247,7 @@ void thread_group_cputimer(struct task_struct *tsk, struct task_cputime *times)
* but barriers are not required because update_gt_cputime()
* can handle concurrent updates.
*/
- WRITE_ONCE(cputimer->running, 1);
+ WRITE_ONCE(cputimer->running, true);
}
sample_cputime_atomic(times, &cputimer->cputime_atomic);
}
@@ -458,8 +456,9 @@ void posix_cpu_timers_exit_group(struct task_struct *tsk)
cleanup_timers(tsk->signal->cpu_timers);
}
-static inline int expires_gt(cputime_t expires, cputime_t new_exp)
+static inline bool expires_gt(cputime_t expires, cputime_t new_exp)
{
+ /* Could also be written "expires - 1 >= new_exp" */
return expires == 0 || expires > new_exp;
}
@@ -911,7 +910,7 @@ static inline void stop_process_timers(struct signal_struct *sig)
struct thread_group_cputimer *cputimer = &sig->cputimer;
/* Turn off cputimer->running. This is done without locking. */
- WRITE_ONCE(cputimer->running, 0);
+ WRITE_ONCE(cputimer->running, false);
}
static u32 onecputick;
@@ -1088,20 +1087,20 @@ out:
* @expires: Expiration times, against which @sample will be checked.
*
* Checks @sample against @expires to see if any field of @sample has expired.
- * Returns true if any field of the former is greater than the corresponding
- * field of the latter if the latter field is set. Otherwise returns false.
+ * Returns %true if any field of the former is greater than the corresponding
+ * field of the latter if the latter field is set. Otherwise returns %false.
*/
-static inline int task_cputime_expired(const struct task_cputime *sample,
+static inline bool task_cputime_expired(const struct task_cputime *sample,
const struct task_cputime *expires)
{
if (expires->utime && sample->utime >= expires->utime)
- return 1;
+ return true;
if (expires->stime && sample->utime + sample->stime >= expires->stime)
- return 1;
+ return true;
if (expires->sum_exec_runtime != 0 &&
sample->sum_exec_runtime >= expires->sum_exec_runtime)
- return 1;
- return 0;
+ return true;
+ return false;
}
/**
@@ -1110,11 +1109,11 @@ static inline int task_cputime_expired(const struct task_cputime *sample,
* @tsk: The task (thread) being checked.
*
* Check the task and thread group timers. If both are zero (there are no
- * timers set) return false. Otherwise snapshot the task and thread group
+ * timers set) return %false. Otherwise snapshot the task and thread group
* timers and compare them with the corresponding expiration times. Return
- * true if a timer has expired, else return false.
+ * %true if a timer has expired, else return %false.
*/
-static inline int fastpath_timer_check(struct task_struct *tsk)
+static inline bool fastpath_timer_check(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
struct signal_struct *sig;
cputime_t utime, stime;
@@ -1129,7 +1128,7 @@ static inline int fastpath_timer_check(struct task_struct *tsk)
};
if (task_cputime_expired(&task_sample, &tsk->cputime_expires))
- return 1;
+ return true;
}
sig = tsk->signal;
@@ -1140,10 +1139,10 @@ static inline int fastpath_timer_check(struct task_struct *tsk)
sample_cputime_atomic(&group_sample, &sig->cputimer.cputime_atomic);
if (task_cputime_expired(&group_sample, &sig->cputime_expires))
- return 1;
+ return true;
}
- return 0;
+ return false;
}
/*
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists