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  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:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:05:29 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Prevent raising SCHED_SOFTIRQ when CPU is !active

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 09:34:15AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 15:23:39 +0100 (CET)
> Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Remove CPU from nohz.idle_cpus_mask to prevent participating in
> > > > +	 * load balancing when not active
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	nohz_balance_exit_idle(rq);
> > > > +
> > > >  	set_cpu_active(cpu, false);
> > > >  	/*
> > > >  	 * We've cleared cpu_active_mask, wait for all preempt-disabled and RCU  
> > > 
> > > OK, so we must clear the state before !active, because getting an
> > > interrupt/softirq after would trigger the badness. And we're guaranteed
> > > nothing blocks between them to re-set it.  
> > 
> > As far as I understood, it is not a problem whether the delete is before or
> > after !active. When it is deleted after, the remote CPU will return in
> > kick_ilb() because cpu is not idle, because it is running the hotplug
> > thread.
> 
> I was thinking that disabling it after may also cause some badness. Even if
> it does not, I think there's no harm in clearing it just before setting cpu
> active to false. And I find that the safer option.

The paranoid in me wanted to write it like:

	preempt_disable();
	nohz_balance_exit_idle(rq);
	set_cpu_active(cpu, false);
	preempt_enable();

(or possibly even local_irq_disable), to guarantee we don't hit idle
between them (which could re-set the nohz idle state we just cleared).

But then I gave up :-)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists