linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] sched: optimize migration by forcing rmb() and updating to be called once

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:	Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:21:49 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	yuyang.du@...el.com, pjt@...gle.com, efault@....de,
	tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] sched: optimize migration by forcing rmb() and
 updating to be called once

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 09:44:16AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:

> > So currently, set_task_cpu() is serialized by:
> > 
> >  - p->pi_lock; on wakeup
> >  - rq->lock; otherwise
> > 
> > (see the #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP comment in set_task_cpu())
> 
> I already read the comment.. Then do you mean the comment above
> migrate_task_rq_fair() is wrong and should be fixed? 

Looks that way, I'm not sure we always hold pi_lock there. But I'm low
on sleep, so I could have overlooked something.

See for example move_queued_task(), we call set_task_cpu() with rq->lock
held, but no pi_lock.

> I thought the comment above migrate_task_rq_fair() is correct rather
> than CONFIG_LOCKDEP comment in set_task_cpu(), when I read it. I think
> these two comments are conflict each other a little bit, so one of
> those should be fixed.

Agreed.

> * the comment above migrate_task_rq_fair() describes it like,
> Caller SHOULD HOLD (&p->pi_lock)
> 
> * the CONFIG_LOCKDEP comment in set_task_cpu() describes it like,
> Caller SHOULD HOLD (&p->pi_lock || &rq->lock)

Indeed.

> > 
> > This means that sched_class::migrate_task() cannot indeed rely on
> > rq->lock for full serialization, however it still means that
> > task_rq_lock() will fully serialize against the thing.
> 
> Yes I also think this is true.
> 
> > 
> > By changing this, it no longer will.
> 
> ???

I meant, if you call __set_task_cpu() before
sched_class::migrate_task_rq(), in that case task_rq_lock() will no
longer fully serialize against set_task_cpu().

Because once you've called __set_task_cpu(), task_rq_lock() will acquire
the _other_ rq->lock. And we cannot rely on our rq->lock to serialize
things.
--
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/