linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu: simplify the calculation of rcu

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:   Sun, 19 Apr 2020 06:02:12 +0800
From:   Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     josh@...htriplett.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: simplify the calculation of rcu_state.ncpus

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 11:19 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 09:39:51PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
> > There is only 1 bit set in mask, which means the difference between
> > oldmask and the new one would be at the position where the bit is set in
> > mask.
> >
> > Based on this knowledge, rcu_state.ncpus could be calculated by checking
> > whether mask is already set in oldmask.
>
> Nice!!!  Good eyes!
>
> > BTW, the comment at the last of this line is mysterious. Not sure it
> > could be removed or not.
>
> The "^^^" in that comment says to look at the comment on the preceding
> line.  Memory-ordering functions like smp_store_release() are supposed
> to have comments indicating what they are ordering.  ;-)
>
> Could you please do the following things and resubmit?
>
> 1.      Forward-port to -rcu branch dev?  This tree lives here:
>         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git
>
> 2.      Given that oldmask is used only to test to see if a new bit
>         was set, why not just replace oldmask with a bool variable
>         that is set to "!(rnp->expmaskinitnext & mask)" before the
>         bit is ORed into rnp->expmaskinitnext?
>
> 3.      Put the comment inside the "if" statement with the
>         smp_store_release().
>
> 4.      In -rcu, you will find a ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER() statement
>         that should also be placed inside the "if" statement with
>         the smp_store_release().
>

Oops, my email client EAT this mail. Hope this mail will not be banned.

I adjust the code a little according to your suggestion like below. Is this
what you expected?

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index f288477ee1c2..f01367a80b70 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -3732,10 +3732,9 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
 {
        unsigned long flags;
        unsigned long mask;
-       int nbits;
-       unsigned long oldmask;
        struct rcu_data *rdp;
        struct rcu_node *rnp;
+       bool has_seen;

        if (per_cpu(rcu_cpu_started, cpu))
                return;
@@ -3747,13 +3746,13 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
        mask = rdp->grpmask;
        raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
        WRITE_ONCE(rnp->qsmaskinitnext, rnp->qsmaskinitnext | mask);
-       oldmask = rnp->expmaskinitnext;
+       has_seen = rnp->expmaskinitnext & mask;
        rnp->expmaskinitnext |= mask;
-       oldmask ^= rnp->expmaskinitnext;
-       nbits = bitmap_weight(&oldmask, BITS_PER_LONG);
-       /* Allow lockless access for expedited grace periods. */
-       smp_store_release(&rcu_state.ncpus, rcu_state.ncpus + nbits); /* ^^^ */
-       ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(rcu_state.ncpus);
+       if (!has_seen) {
+               /* Allow lockless access for expedited grace periods. */
+               smp_store_release(&rcu_state.ncpus, rcu_state.ncpus +
1); /* ^^^ */
+               ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(rcu_state.ncpus);
+       }
        rcu_gpnum_ovf(rnp, rdp); /* Offline-induced counter wrap? */
        rdp->rcu_onl_gp_seq = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_seq);
        rdp->rcu_onl_gp_flags = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags);

>                                                         Thanx, Paul
>
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 6 ++----
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index d91c9156fab2..f0d9251fa663 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -3364,7 +3364,6 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
> >  {
> >       unsigned long flags;
> >       unsigned long mask;
> > -     int nbits;
> >       unsigned long oldmask;
> >       struct rcu_data *rdp;
> >       struct rcu_node *rnp;
> > @@ -3381,10 +3380,9 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
> >       rnp->qsmaskinitnext |= mask;
> >       oldmask = rnp->expmaskinitnext;
> >       rnp->expmaskinitnext |= mask;
> > -     oldmask ^= rnp->expmaskinitnext;
> > -     nbits = bitmap_weight(&oldmask, BITS_PER_LONG);
> >       /* Allow lockless access for expedited grace periods. */
> > -     smp_store_release(&rcu_state.ncpus, rcu_state.ncpus + nbits); /* ^^^ */
> > +     if (!(oldmask & mask))
> > +             smp_store_release(&rcu_state.ncpus, rcu_state.ncpus + 1); /* ^^^ */
> >       rcu_gpnum_ovf(rnp, rdp); /* Offline-induced counter wrap? */
> >       rdp->rcu_onl_gp_seq = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_seq);
> >       rdp->rcu_onl_gp_flags = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags);
> > --
> > 2.23.0
> >