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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:19:14 -0700 From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: Assign higher priority to RCU threads if its rcutorture On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:00:24AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:34:21PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:22:14PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org> > > > > > > rcutorture boost tests fail even with CONFIG_RCU_BOOST set because > > > rcutorture's threads are equal priority to the default RCU kthreads (RT > > > class with priority of 1). > > > > Sorry for the weird subject line, I meant "rcu: Assign higher prio if > > rcutorture is built into kernel". I have included the patch with the subject > > line fixed up below (if you prefer to take that instead). > > > > Also one question, incase rcutorture is a module, we can't raise the priority > > of the kthreads because it would be too late to do at module load time. In > > this case, do you have any ideas on what we can do? I was thinking we can > > access the kernel command line from within rcutorture module and check if > > 'rcutree.kthread_prio' was passed. And if it is and isn't sufficiently high, > > then we avoid testing boost feature at all (and print a nice message telling > > the user about the issue). > > I do like the idea of checking and printing the message in this case. Cool, I used this approach in the series I just sent. I agree its good to report it. > Another alternative would be to allow rcutree.kthread_prio to be changed > at runtime. But one caution: rcutree.kthread_prio applies to a number > of kthreads, not just the boost kthreads, so this approach might have > some unwelcome side-effects. Yes, I was trying to avoid those complexities just because of rcutorture. > > OTOH, we can just let rcutorture module loaders fail the test if you feel > > very few automation tests do the module loading way of rcutorture and so a > > boost test failure there is tolerable. For me, I will likely be running > > rcutorture only as a built-in so I am Ok with not special casing it within > > rcutorture. > > I don't know of anyone using the module-loading approach. Probably > someone somewhere does it from time to time, though. Oh Ok :). Then I guess the warning print from rcutorture is sufficient as I did. thanks! - Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists