linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpu/hotplug: wait for cpuset_hotplug

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]

Date:   Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:38:51 +0000
From:   Alexey Klimov <aklimov@...hat.com>
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        yury.norov@...il.com, Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        tglx@...utronix.de, Joshua Baker <jobaker@...hat.com>,
        audralmitchel@...il.com, arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org, lizefan@...wei.com,
        hannes@...xchg.org, Alexey Klimov <klimov.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu/hotplug: wait for cpuset_hotplug_work to finish on
 cpu onlining

On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 11:22 AM Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com> wrote:
>
> On 02/04/21 10:46, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 01:01:57AM +0000, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> > > @@ -1281,6 +1282,11 @@ static int cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, enum cpuhp_state target)
> > >     err = _cpu_up(cpu, 0, target);
> > >  out:
> > >     cpu_maps_update_done();
> > > +
> > > +   /* To avoid out of line uevent */
> > > +   if (!err)
> > > +           cpuset_wait_for_hotplug();
> > > +
> > >     return err;
> > >  }
> > >
> >
> > > @@ -2071,14 +2075,18 @@ static void cpuhp_online_cpu_device(unsigned int cpu)
> > >     struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
> > >
> > >     dev->offline = false;
> > > -   /* Tell user space about the state change */
> > > -   kobject_uevent(&dev->kobj, KOBJ_ONLINE);
> > >  }
> > >
> >
> > One concequence of this is that you'll now get a bunch of notifications
> > across things like suspend/hybernate.
>
> And the resume latency will incur 5-30ms * nr_cpu_ids.
>
> Since you just care about device_online(), isn't cpu_device_up() a better place
> for the wait? This function is special helper for device_online(), leaving
> suspend/resume and kexec paths free from having to do this unnecessary wait.

Yup, the same idea here once Peter mentioned bringup_nonboot_cpus()
and bringup_hibernate_cpu().

Best regards,
Alexey