linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: Document Program-Order guarantees

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:	Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:34:42 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	boqun.feng@...il.com, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	mhocko@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: Document Program-Order guarantees

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:27:05PM -0800, Paul Turner wrote:
> I suspect this part might be more explicitly expressed by specifying
> the requirements that migration satisfies; then providing an example.
> This makes it easier for others to reason about the locks and saves
> worrying about whether the examples hit our 3 million sub-cases.
> 
> I'd also propose just dropping preemption from this part, we only need
> memory order to be correct on migration, whether it's scheduled or not
> [it also invites confusion with the wake-up case].
> 
> Something like:
> When any task 't' migrates, all activity on its prior cpu [c1] is
> guaranteed to be happens-before any subsequent execution on its new
> cpu [c2].  There are 3 components to enforcing this.
> 
> [c1]          1) Sched-out of t requires rq(c1)->lock
> [any cpu] 2) Any migration of t, by any cpu is required to synchronize
> on *both* rq(c1)->lock and rq(c2)->lock
> [c2]          3) Sched-in of t requires cq(c2)->lock
> 
> Transitivity guarantees that (2) orders after (1) and (3) after (2).
> Note that in some cases (e.g. active, or idle cpu) the balancing cpu
> in (2) may be c1 or c2.
> 
> [Follow example]

Make sense, I'll try and reword things like that.

Note that in don't actually need the strong transitivity here (RCsc),
weak transitivity (RCpc) is in fact sufficient.
--
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/