linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/20] sched,rcu: Make cond

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20170116113802.GN5238@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2017 03:38:02 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
        fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/20] sched,rcu: Make cond_resched()
 provide RCU quiescent state

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:08:43AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:13:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > There is some confusion as to which of cond_resched() or
> > cond_resched_rcu_qs() should be added to long in-kernel loops.
> > This commit therefore eliminates the decision by adding RCU
> > quiescent states to cond_resched().
> > 
> > Warning: This is a prototype.  For example, it does not correctly
> > handle Tasks RCU.  Which is OK for the moment, given that no one
> > actually uses Tasks RCU yet.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
> > Not-yet-signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> 
> Do you intend to merge this patch, or have you just posted it for
> review?
> 
> You may want to remove it from this 20-patch series and post it as a
> separate RFC PATCH, to ensure that it doesn't get merged while still a
> prototype.

It does look like I should delay this one until I get my story straight.

Good catch!

							Thanx, Paul

> >  include/linux/sched.h | 3 ++-
> >  kernel/sched/core.c   | 1 +
> >  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > index 4d1905245c7a..1531c48f56e2 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > @@ -3352,10 +3352,11 @@ static inline int signal_pending_state(long state, struct task_struct *p)
> >   * cond_resched_lock() will drop the spinlock before scheduling,
> >   * cond_resched_softirq() will enable bhs before scheduling.
> >   */
> > +void rcu_all_qs(void);
> >  #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> >  extern int _cond_resched(void);
> >  #else
> > -static inline int _cond_resched(void) { return 0; }
> > +static inline int _cond_resched(void) { rcu_all_qs(); return 0; }
> >  #endif
> >  
> >  #define cond_resched() ({			\
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index c56fb57f2991..b442f8918eb9 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -4907,6 +4907,7 @@ int __sched _cond_resched(void)
> >  		preempt_schedule_common();
> >  		return 1;
> >  	}
> > +	rcu_all_qs();
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(_cond_resched);
> > -- 
> > 2.5.2
> > 
>