linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu: shrink each possible cpu krcp

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: <20200814185124.GA2113@pc636>
Date:   Fri, 14 Aug 2020 20:51:24 +0200
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     qiang.zhang@...driver.com, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     paulmck@...nel.org, josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: shrink each possible cpu krcp

> From: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@...driver.com>
> 
> Due to cpu hotplug. some cpu may be offline after call "kfree_call_rcu"
> func, if the shrinker is triggered at this time, we should drain each
> possible cpu "krcp".
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@...driver.com>
> ---
>  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 8ce77d9ac716..619ccbb3fe4b 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -3443,7 +3443,7 @@ kfree_rcu_shrink_count(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
>  	unsigned long count = 0;
>  
>  	/* Snapshot count of all CPUs */
> -	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>  		struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp = per_cpu_ptr(&krc, cpu);
>  
>  		count += READ_ONCE(krcp->count);
> @@ -3458,7 +3458,7 @@ kfree_rcu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
>  	int cpu, freed = 0;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
> -	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>  		int count;
>  		struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp = per_cpu_ptr(&krc, cpu);
>  
> @@ -3491,7 +3491,7 @@ void __init kfree_rcu_scheduler_running(void)
>  	int cpu;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
> -	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>  		struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp = per_cpu_ptr(&krc, cpu);
>  
>  		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&krcp->lock, flags);
>
I agree that it can happen.

Joel, what is your view?

Thanks!

--
Vlad Rezki