linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] pipe: use pipe busy wait

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809042351220.1416@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Tue, 4 Sep 2018 23:54:59 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        dhaval.giani@...cle.com, steven.sistare@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] pipe: use pipe busy wait

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, subhra mazumdar wrote:
>  
> +void pipe_busy_wait(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe)
> +{
> +	unsigned long wait_flag = pipe->pipe_wait_flag;
> +	unsigned long start_time = pipe_busy_loop_current_time();
> +
> +	pipe_unlock(pipe);
> +	preempt_disable();
> +	for (;;) {
> +		if (pipe->pipe_wait_flag > wait_flag) {
> +			preempt_enable();
> +			pipe_lock(pipe);
> +			return;
> +		}
> +		if (pipe_busy_loop_timeout(pipe, start_time))
> +			break;
> +		cpu_relax();
> +	}
> +	preempt_enable();

You are not really serious about busy looping with preemption disabled?

That's just wrong. Why do you want to block others from getting on the CPU
if there is nothing in the pipe?

There is no point in doing so, really. If the wait loop is preempted
because there is more important work to do, then it will come back and
either see new data, or leave due to wait time reached.

Thanks,

	tglx