linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/resctrl: Move setting task's active CPU in a mask into helpers

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: <db6bea7e-b60b-2859-aa35-c3d2d5356eaa@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:24:51 -0800
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, fenghua.yu@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
        kuo-lang.tseng@...el.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        valentin.schneider@....com, mingo@...hat.com, babu.moger@....com,
        james.morse@....com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/resctrl: Move setting task's active CPU in a mask
 into helpers

Hi Borislav,

Thank you very much for your review.

On 12/7/2020 10:29 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 03:25:48PM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
>>
>> The code of setting the CPU on which a task is running in a CPU mask is
>> moved into a couple of helpers.
> 
> Pls read section "2) Describe your changes" in
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for more details.
> 
> More specifically:
> 
> "Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
> instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
> to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change
> its behaviour."
> 
>> The new helper task_on_cpu() will be reused shortly.
> 
> "reused shortly"? I don't think so.


How about:
"Move the setting of the CPU on which a task is running in a CPU mask 
into a couple of helpers.

There is no functional change. This is a preparatory change for the fix 
in the following patch from where the Fixes tag is copied."

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> 
> Fixes?
> 
> I guess the same commit from the other two:
> 
> Fixes: e02737d5b826 ("x86/intel_rdt: Add tasks files")
> 
> ?

Correct. I will add it. The addition to the commit message above aims to 
explain a Fixes tag to a patch with no functional changes.


>> ---
>>   arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>> index 6f4ca4bea625..68db7d2dec8f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>> @@ -525,6 +525,38 @@ static void rdtgroup_remove(struct rdtgroup *rdtgrp)
>>   	kfree(rdtgrp);
>>   }
>>   
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> +/* Get the CPU if the task is on it. */
>> +static bool task_on_cpu(struct task_struct *t, int *cpu)
>> +{
>> +	/*
>> +	 * This is safe on x86 w/o barriers as the ordering of writing to
>> +	 * task_cpu() and t->on_cpu is reverse to the reading here. The
>> +	 * detection is inaccurate as tasks might move or schedule before
>> +	 * the smp function call takes place. In such a case the function
>> +	 * call is pointless, but there is no other side effect.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (t->on_cpu) {
>> +		*cpu = task_cpu(t);
> 
> Why have an I/O parameter when you can make it simply:
> 
> static int task_on_cpu(struct task_struct *t)
> {
> 	if (t->on_cpu)
> 		return task_cpu(t);
> 
> 	return -1;
> }
> 
>> +
>> +		return true;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void set_task_cpumask(struct task_struct *t, struct cpumask *mask)
>> +{
>> +	int cpu;
>> +
>> +	if (mask && task_on_cpu(t, &cpu))
>> +		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mask);
> 
> And that you can turn into:
> 
> 	if (!mask)
> 		return;
> 
> 	cpu = task_on_cpu(t);
> 	if (cpu < 0)
> 		return;
> 
> 	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mask);
> 
> Readable and simple.
> 
> Hmm?
> 

Will do. Thank you very much.

Reinette