linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/13] rcu: Don't disable preemption for Tiny and Tree RCU readers

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: <20151007071948.GT2881@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:19:48 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/13] rcu: Don't disable preemption for
 Tiny and Tree RCU readers

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 02:05:39PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:52:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:18:01PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:05:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > index b9d9e0249e2f..93c0f23c3e45 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > @@ -337,12 +337,14 @@ static void rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle(void)
> > > > >   */
> > > > >  void rcu_note_context_switch(void)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > +	barrier(); /* Avoid RCU read-side critical sections leaking down. */
> > > > >  	trace_rcu_utilization(TPS("Start context switch"));
> > > > >  	rcu_sched_qs();
> > > > >  	rcu_preempt_note_context_switch();
> > > > >  	if (unlikely(raw_cpu_read(rcu_sched_qs_mask)))
> > > > >  		rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle();
> > > > >  	trace_rcu_utilization(TPS("End context switch"));
> > > > > +	barrier(); /* Avoid RCU read-side critical sections leaking up. */
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_note_context_switch);
> > > > 
> > > > These OTOH could be fixed with a noinline, such that the compiler may
> > > > never inline it, even with whole-program-optimizations, thereby
> > > > guaranteeing a function call boundary or compiler barrier.
> > > 
> > > I like the barrier() with the comment.  I expect it will be a bit more
> > > robust against toolchain changes.
> > 
> > Don't you in fact already rely on the fact that schedule() is a function
> > call and will not be inlined? (it doesn't have noinline and I suppose
> > whole program optimizers could go funny on it).
> 
> Probably pretty much everywhere I call schedule().  But I was thinking
> that barrier() and the beginning and end of an external function didn't
> need to do anything.  Is that incorrect?

No. My point was more that by removing barrier() from
rcu_read_{un,}lock() you hard rely on schedule() being a compiler
barrier, and I was thinking you need it to be a function call for that,
but this is incorrect.

Even without it being a function call, there's explicit compiler
barriers in there that even whole program optimizers cannot make go
away, so my bad for creating confusion.
--
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/