linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 04/19] cpufreq: bring data structures close to their locks

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, 12 Jan 2016 09:27:18 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
	mturquette@...libre.com, steve.muckle@...aro.org,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, morten.rasmussen@....com,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 04/19] cpufreq: bring data structures close to their
 locks

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:03:39AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 11:05:28 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:35:45PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > +/**
> > > + * The "cpufreq driver" - the arch- or hardware-dependent low
> > > + * level driver of CPUFreq support, and its spinlock (cpufreq_driver_lock).
> > > + * This lock also protects cpufreq_cpu_data array and cpufreq_policy_list.
> > > + */
> > > +static struct cpufreq_driver *cpufreq_driver;
> > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpufreq_policy *, cpufreq_cpu_data);
> > >  static LIST_HEAD(cpufreq_policy_list);
> > > +static DEFINE_RWLOCK(cpufreq_driver_lock);
> > 
> > Part of my suggestion was to fold the per-cpu data of cpufreq_cpu_data
> > into struct cpufreq_driver.
> > 
> > That way each cpufreq_driver will have its own copy and there'd be only
> > the one global pointer to swizzle. Something very well suited to RCU.
> 
> Well, I'm not really sure reworking all that is necessary.
> 
> What we need is to be able to call something analogous to dbs_timer_handler()
> from the scheduler and a driver callback from there (if present).  For that,
> it should be sufficient to have a pointer to that callback (that may be set
> upon driver registration) protected by RCU (or should that be sched RCU
> rather?) if I'm not missing anything.

But such a callback will invariably want to use the per-cpu state. And
now you have two pointers, one for the driver and one for the per-cpu
state. Keeping that in sync is a pain.

Moving the per-cpu data into the driver solves that trivially.