linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 03/14] PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework

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: <20181002140430.fpeiqzblbcaewg6n@queper01-lin>
Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:05:23 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        morten.rasmussen@....com, chris.redpath@....com,
        patrick.bellasi@....com, valentin.schneider@....com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, thara.gopinath@...aro.org,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, tkjos@...gle.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
        smuckle@...gle.com, adharmap@...eaurora.org,
        skannan@...eaurora.org, pkondeti@...eaurora.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, edubezval@...il.com,
        srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com, currojerez@...eup.net,
        javi.merino@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/14] PM: Introduce an Energy Model management
 framework

On Tuesday 02 Oct 2018 at 15:48:57 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +/**
> + * em_cpu_get() - Return the performance domain for a CPU
> + * @cpu : CPU to find the performance domain for
> + *
> + * Return: the performance domain to which 'cpu' belongs, or NULL if it doesn't
> + * exist.
> + */
> +struct em_perf_domain *em_cpu_get(int cpu)
> +{
> +       return READ_ONCE(per_cpu(em_data, cpu));
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(em_cpu_get);
> 
> But your read side doesn't take, not is required to take em_pd_mutex.
> 
> At that point, the mutex_unlock() doesn't guarantee anything.
> 
> A CPU observing the em_data store, doesn't need to observe the store
> that filled the data structure it points to.

Right but even if I add the smp_store_release(), I can still have a
CPU observing em_data while another is in the process of updating it.
So, if smp_store_release() doesn't guarantee that readers will see a
complete update, do I actually get something interesting from it ?
(That's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually wondering :-)

Thanks,
Quentin