linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/25] sched/vtime: Protect idle accounting under vtime seqcount

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:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 14:19:39 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/25] sched/vtime: Protect idle accounting under vtime
 seqcount

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 03:45:46AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Locking the seqcount on idle vtime accounting wasn't thought to be
> necessary because the readers of idle cputime don't use vtime (yet).
> 
> Now updating vtime expect the related seqcount to be locked so do it
> for locking coherency purposes.
> 
> Also idle cputime updates use vtime, but idle cputime readers use the
> traditional ad-hoc nohz time delta. We may want to consider moving
> readers to use vtime to consolidate the overall accounting scheme. The
> seqcount will be a functional requirement for it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> Cc: Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@...hat.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/cputime.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cputime.c b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> index 54eb945..6e74ec2 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> @@ -800,7 +800,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vtime_guest_exit);
>  
>  void vtime_account_idle(struct task_struct *tsk)
>  {
> +	struct vtime *vtime = &tsk->vtime;
> +
> +	write_seqcount_begin(&vtime->seqcount);
>  	account_idle_time(get_vtime_delta(&tsk->vtime));
> +	write_seqcount_end(&vtime->seqcount);
>  }

So this makes switching away from idle more expensive ? Also,
vtime_account_system() has this fast-path check in there before taking
that lock, should we not do the same? Or should it be removed from
vtime_account_system() ?