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: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 20:03:13 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> 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, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/2] rcu: Defer reporting RCU-preempt quiescent states when disabled On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 05:37:32PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 03:25:01PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > [...] > > > > @@ -602,6 +589,66 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t) > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > + * Is a deferred quiescent-state pending, and are we also not in > > > > + * an RCU read-side critical section? It is the caller's responsibility > > > > + * to ensure it is otherwise safe to report any deferred quiescent > > > > + * states. The reason for this is that it is safe to report a > > > > + * quiescent state during context switch even though preemption > > > > + * is disabled. This function cannot be expected to understand these > > > > + * nuances, so the caller must handle them. > > > > + */ > > > > +static bool rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(struct task_struct *t) > > > > +{ > > > > + return (this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_preempt_data)->deferred_qs || > > > > + READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)) && > > > > + !t->rcu_read_lock_nesting; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +/* > > > > + * Report a deferred quiescent state if needed and safe to do so. > > > > + * As with rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(), "safe" involves only > > > > + * not being in an RCU read-side critical section. The caller must > > > > + * evaluate safety in terms of interrupt, softirq, and preemption > > > > + * disabling. > > > > + */ > > > > +static void rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(struct task_struct *t) > > > > +{ > > > > + unsigned long flags; > > > > + > > > > + if (!rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(t)) > > > > + return; > > > > + local_irq_save(flags); > > > > + rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +/* > > > > + * Handle special cases during rcu_read_unlock(), such as needing to > > > > + * notify RCU core processing or task having blocked during the RCU > > > > + * read-side critical section. > > > > + */ > > > > +static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t) > > > > +{ > > > > + unsigned long flags; > > > > + bool preempt_bh_were_disabled = !!(preempt_count() & ~HARDIRQ_MASK); > > > > > > Would it be better to just test for those bits just to be safe the higher > > > order bits don't bleed in, such as PREEMPT_NEED_RESCHED, something like the > > > following based on the 'dev' branch? > > > > Good point! My plan is to merge it into the original commit with > > attribution. Please let me know if you have objections. > > > > Sure! That sounds good to me. Very good, I now have a "squash" commit queued, thank you! Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists