linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Make need_resched() return true when rcu_urgent

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, 11 Jul 2018 21:19:44 +0100
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:     paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mhillenb@...zon.de,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Make need_resched() return true when rcu_urgent_qs
 requested

On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 13:17 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> As I understand it, they would like to have their guest run uninterrupted
> for extended times.  Because rcu_virt_note_context_switch() is a
> point-in-time quiescent state, it cannot tell RCU about the extended
> quiescent state.
> 
> Should we replace the current calls to rcu_virt_note_context_switch()
> with rcu_kvm_enter() and rcu_kvm_exit()?  Would that be better
> than the below architecture-by-architecture approach?

Yes it would. I was already starting to mutter about needing the same
for ARM and POWER. I'll do a v3 (incorporating your fixes too) in the
morning.

Thanks.

Also... why in $DEITY's name was the existing
rcu_virt_note_context_switch() not actually sufficient? If we had that
there, why did we need an additional explicit calls to rcu_all_qs() in
the KVM loop, or the more complex fixes to need_resched() which
ultimately had the same effect, to avoid ten-second latencies?
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)