linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu allocator for irq-safe requests -fix

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]

Date:   Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:56:22 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu allocator for irq-safe
 requests -fix

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Mel Gorman wrote:

> preempt_enable_no_resched() was used based on review feedback that had no
> strong objection at the time. It avoided introducing a preemption point
> where one didn't exist before which was marginal at best.

Actually local_irq_enable() _IS_ a preemption point, indirect but still:

   local_irq_disable()
   ....
--> HW interrupt is raised
   ....
   local_irq_enable()

   handle_irq()
	set_need_resched()
   ret_from_irq()
     preempt()

while with preempt_disable that looks like this:

   preempt_disable()
   ....
--> HW interrupt is raised
   handle_irq()
	set_need_resched()
   ret_from_irq()
   ....
   preempt_enable()
      preempt()

Now if you use preempt_enable_no_resched() then you miss the preemption and
depending on the actual code path you might run something which takes ages
without hitting a preemption point after that.

It's not only a problem for RT. It's also in mainline a violation of the
preemption mechanism.

Thanks,

	tglx