linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 4/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce starvation avoidance into CNA

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 25 Jan 2020 14:57:41 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@...cle.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        Jan Glauber <jglauber@...vell.com>,
        Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        dave.dice@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce starvation avoidance
 into CNA

On 1/24/20 1:51 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
>> You can use the in_task() macro in include/linux/preempt.h. This is
>> just a percpu preempt_count read and test. If in_task() is false, it
>> is in a {soft|hard}irq or nmi context. If it is true, you can check
>> the rt_task() macro to see if it is an RT task. That will access to
>> the current task structure. So it may cost a little bit more if you
>> want to handle the RT task the same way.
>>
> We may not need to do that for softIRQ context. If that is the case, you
> can use in_irq() which checks for hardirq and nmi only. Peter, what is
> your thought on that?

In second thought, we should do that for softIRQ as well. Also, we may
want to also check if irqs_disabled() is true as well by calls like
spin_lock_irq() or spin_lock_irqsave().  We do not want to unnecessarily
prolong the irq off period.

Cheers,
Longman