linux-kernel - Re: [bisected] "sched: Allow per-cpu kernel threads to run on online && !active" causes warning

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]

Message-ID: <20160816152949.GL30192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 16 Aug 2016 17:29:49 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [bisected] "sched: Allow per-cpu kernel threads to run on online
 && !active" causes warning

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:20:27AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> As long as the mapping doesn't change after the first onlining of the
> CPU, the workqueue side shouldn't be too difficult to fix up.  I'll
> look into it.  For memory allocations, as long as the cpu <-> node
> mapping is established before any memory allocation for the cpu takes
> place, it should be fine too, I think.

Don't we allocate per-cpu memory for 'cpu_possible_map' on boot? There's
a whole bunch of per-cpu memory users that does things like:


	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
		struct foo *foo = per_cpu_ptr(&per_cpu_var, cpu);

		/* muck with foo */
	}


Which requires a cpu->node map for all possible cpus at boot time.