linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/10] rcu: Temporarily assume that nohz full CPUs might not be NOCB

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: <20200514224912.GB4071@lenoir>
Date:   Fri, 15 May 2020 00:49:13 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] rcu: Temporarily assume that nohz full CPUs might
 not be NOCB

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 08:50:32AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 01:08:28AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:25:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 06:47:11PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > So far nohz_full CPUs had to be nocb. This requirement may change
> > > > temporarily as we are working on preparing RCU to be able to toggle the
> > > > nocb state of a CPU. Once that is done and nohz_full can be toggled as
> > > > well dynamically, we'll restore that initial requirement.
> > > 
> > > Would it simplify anything to make the CPU exit nohz_full first and
> > > then exit rcu_nocb and vice versa in the other direction?  That way the
> > > assumption about nohz_full CPUs always being rcu_nocb could remain while
> > > still allowing runtime changes to both states.
> > 
> > That's the future plan but for now nohz_full can't even be exited yet.
> > RCU is unlucky enough to be chosen as the starting point of this whole work :-)
> 
> But testing could still start with CPUs marked rcu_nocb but not marked
> nohz_full, right?

Ah! That makes sense indeed. I should indeed restrict de-offloading to CPUs
that are not nohz_full.

> I must confess that I am a bit concerned about the increase in state space.

Yeah good point!

> Fair point, but I am also concerned about the welfare of the people
> working on it.  ;-)

Fair enough! :-)