linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/9] slab: remove synchronous rcu_barrier() call in memcg cache release path

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: <20170114131939.GA2668@esperanza>
Date:   Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:19:39 +0300
From:   Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...antool.org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jsvana@...com,
        hannes@...xchg.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] slab: remove synchronous rcu_barrier() call in memcg
 cache release path

Hello Tejun,

Thanks a lot for looking into this issue as it seems to affect a lot of
users!

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:54:42AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> This patch updates the cache release path so that it simply uses
> call_rcu() instead of the synchronous rcu_barrier() + custom batching.
> This doesn't cost more while being logically simpler and way more
> scalable.

The point of rcu_barrier() is to wait until all rcu calls freeing slabs
from the cache being destroyed are over (rcu_free_slab, kmem_rcu_free).
I'm not sure if call_rcu() guarantees that for all rcu implementations
too. If it did, why would we need rcu_barrier() at all?