linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] lib/percpu-list: Per-cpu list with associated per-cpu 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:	Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:36:18 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] lib/percpu-list: Per-cpu list with associated
 per-cpu locks

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:26:54PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:10:02PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:00:40PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > Yeah, that is pretty terrible. Maybe a visitor interface is advisable?
> > > 
> > > visit_percpu_list_entries(struct percpu_list *head, void (*visitor)(struct list_head *pos, void *data), void *data)
> > > {
> > > 	int cpu;
> > > 
> > > 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > > 		spinlock_t *lock = per_cpu_ptr(&head->lock, cpu);
> > > 		struct list_head *head = per_cpu_ptr(&head->list, cpu);
> > > 		struct list_head *pos, *tmp;
> > > 
> > > 		spin_lock(lock);
> > > 		for (pos = head->next, tmp = pos->next; pos != head; pos = tmp)
> > > 			visitor(pos, data);
> > 
> > I thought about this - it's the same problem as the list_lru walking
> > functions. That is, the visitor has to be able to drop the list lock
> > to do blocking operations, so the lock has to be passed to the
> > visitor/internal loop context somehow, and the way the callers can
> > use it need to be documented.
> 
> But you cannot drop the lock and guarantee fwd progress. The moment you
> drop the lock, you have to restart the iteration from the head, since
> any iterator you had might now be pointing into space.

Ah, I see what iterate_bdevs() does. Yes, that's somewhat 'special'. Not
sure it makes sense to craft a generic 'interface' for that.