linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] SRCU rewrite

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: <CAJhGHyCr74zTnc10QvORDZXfd-vdc0Caa0hG250UWwMwsMkUfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:18:51 +0800
From:   Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, edumazet@...gle.com,
        dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
        Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com, ldr709@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] SRCU rewrite

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 09:44:45AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:

>>
>> __srcu_read_lock() used to be called with preemption disabled. I guess
>> the reason was because we have two percpu variables to increase. So with
>> only one percpu right, could we remove the preempt_{dis,en}able() in
>> srcu_read_lock() and use this_cpu_inc() here?
>
> Quite possibly...
>

it will be nicer if it is removed.

The reason for the preemption-disabled was also because we
have to disallow any preemption between the fetching of the idx
and the increasement. so that we have at most NR_CPUS worth
of readers using the old index that haven't incremented the counters.

if we remove the preempt_{dis,en}able(). we must change the
"NR_CPUS" in the comment into ULONG_MAX/4. (I assume
one on-going reader needs at least need 4bytes at the stack). it is still safe.

but we still need to think more if we want to remove the preempt_{dis,en}able().

Thanks
Lai