linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC 2/3] s390: improve wait logic of stop

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: <20190611091546.GV3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jun 2019 11:15:46 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 2/3] s390: improve wait logic of stop_machine

On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 01:08:52PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/processor.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/processor.c
> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ struct cpu_info {
>  };
>  
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpu_info, cpu_info);
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, cpu_relax_retry);
>  
>  static bool machine_has_cpu_mhz;
>  
> @@ -58,13 +59,21 @@ void s390_update_cpu_mhz(void)
>  		on_each_cpu(update_cpu_mhz, NULL, 0);
>  }
>  
> +void notrace cpu_relax_yield(const struct cpumask *cpumask)
>  {
> +	int cpu;
> +
> +	if (__this_cpu_inc_return(cpu_relax_retry) >= spin_retry) {
> +		__this_cpu_write(cpu_relax_retry, 0);

I don't mind, but do we really need a per-cpu variable for this? Does it
really matter if you spin on a stack variable and occasionally spin a
bit longer due to the missed tail of the previous spin?

> +		cpu = cpumask_next(smp_processor_id(), cpumask);
> +		if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) {
> +			cpu = cpumask_first(cpumask);
> +			if (cpu == smp_processor_id())
> +				return;

If this function is passed an empty cpumask, the above will result in
'cpu == nr_cpu_ids' and the below might be unhappy with that.

(FWIW we do have cpumask_next_wrap(), but I admit it is somewhat awkward
to use)

> +		}
> +		if (arch_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu))
> +			smp_yield_cpu(cpu);
>  	}
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_relax_yield);