linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip V3 8/8] workqueue: Fix affinity of kworkers when attaching into pool

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJhGHyCvnj1w=yO45_HxD8dgy=Xa1vUw9wsnJKtfDX2Jkm5FsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Dec 2020 18:13:03 +0800
From:   Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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 <hdanton@...a.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 10:51:16 +0800
> > From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
> >
> > 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.