linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Better document the try_to_wake

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: <20151204000912.GB3514@byungchulpark-X58A-UD3R>
Date:	Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:09:12 +0900
From:	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, corbet@....net,
	mhocko@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Better document the try_to_wake_up() barriers

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:29:02PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Explain how the control dependency and smp_rmb() end up providing
> ACQUIRE semantics and pair with smp_store_release() in
> finish_lock_switch().
> 
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c  |    8 +++++++-
>  kernel/sched/sched.h |    3 +++
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -1947,7 +1947,13 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, un
>  	while (p->on_cpu)
>  		cpu_relax();
>  	/*
> -	 * Pairs with the smp_wmb() in finish_lock_switch().
> +	 * Combined with the control dependency above, we have an effective
> +	 * smp_load_acquire() without the need for full barriers.
> +	 *
> +	 * Pairs with the smp_store_release() in finish_lock_switch().
> +	 *
> +	 * This ensures that tasks getting woken will be fully ordered against
> +	 * their previous state and preserve Program Order.
>  	 */
>  	smp_rmb();

Hello,

I am not sure, but just curious..

I thought it's good enough to use a kind of dependancy barrier such as
smp_read_barrier_depends() instead of smp_rmb() here unless something
e.g. compiler breaks the control dependacy. Right?

>  
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -1073,6 +1073,9 @@ static inline void finish_lock_switch(st
>  	 * We must ensure this doesn't happen until the switch is completely
>  	 * finished.
>  	 *
> +	 * In particular, the load of prev->state in finish_task_switch() must
> +	 * happen before this.
> +	 *
>  	 * Pairs with the control dependency and rmb in try_to_wake_up().
>  	 */
>  	smp_store_release(&prev->on_cpu, 0);
> 
> 
> --
> 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/
--
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/