linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] blk-mq: Don't IPI requests on PREEMPT

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: <20201023135219.mzzl76eqqy6tqwhe@linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 23 Oct 2020 15:52:19 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     David Runge <dave@...epmap.de>, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] blk-mq: Don't IPI requests on PREEMPT_RT

On 2020-10-23 12:21:30 [+0100], Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > -	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) ||
> > +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) ||
> >  	    !test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_COMP, &rq->q->queue_flags))
> 
> This needs a big fat comment explaining your rationale.  And probably
> a separate if statement to make it obvious as well.

Okay.
How much difference does it make between completing in-softirq vs
in-IPI? I'm asking because acquiring a spinlock_t in an IPI shouldn't be
done (as per Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst). We don't have
anything in lockdep that will complain here on !RT and we the above we
avoid the case on RT.

Sebastian