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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20170116171130.GC6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:11:30 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, 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 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().

Which would make: rcu_read_lock(); cond_resched(); rcu_read_unlock();
invalid under preemptible RCU. Is it already?

> 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.

> --- 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;
>  }

Still not a real fan of this, it does make cond_resched() touch a bunch
more cachelines, also, I suppose that if we're going to do this, we
should make __cond_resched_lock() and __cond_resched_softirq() act
similarly.