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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 29 Dec 2020 18:13:03 +0800
From:   Lai Jiangshan <>
To:     Hillf Danton <>
Cc:     LKML <>,
        Valentin Schneider <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Qian Cai <>,
        Vincent Donnefort <>,
        Dexuan Cui <>,
        Lai Jiangshan <>,
        Tejun Heo <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip V3 8/8] workqueue: Fix affinity of kworkers when
 attaching into pool

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 6:06 PM Hillf Danton <> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 10:51:16 +0800
> > From: Lai Jiangshan <>
> >
> > When worker_attach_to_pool() is called, we should not put the workers
> > to pool->attrs->cpumask when there is not CPU online in it.
> >
> > We have to use wq_online_cpumask in worker_attach_to_pool() to check
> > if pool->attrs->cpumask is valid rather than cpu_online_mask or
> > cpu_active_mask due to gaps between stages in cpu hot[un]plug.
> In 5/8 pool->attrs->cpumask is not restored to avoid triggering
> the warning added in e9d867a67fd03ccc ("sched: Allow
> per-cpu kernel threads to run on online && !active"), is it likely
> needed to repeat that trick here?
> Is the above gap no longer existing here at the presence of
> wq_online_cpumask?

It still exists. When online, wq_online_cpumask is always
cpu_online_mask, no thing changed.

An alternative way is to move the code into a work item, which adds
the proper protection against cpu hotlug and does the work.

I don't want to add too much complex in this patchset.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists