linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: Make the idle task quack like a per-CPU kthread

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: <87k0o6int0.mognet@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 16:57:47 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, yejune.deng@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: Make the idle task quack like a per-CPU kthread

On 10/05/21 16:10, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> This requires some extra iffery as init_idle()
> call be called more than once on the same idle task.
>

While I'm at it, do we actually still need to suffer through this?

AFAICT the extra calls are due to idle_thread_get() (used in cpuhp) calling
init_idle(). However it looks to me that since

  3bb5d2ee396a ("smp, idle: Allocate idle thread for each possible cpu during boot")

we don't need to do that: we already have a

  for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
    init_idle(cpu)

issued at init. So can't we "simply" rely on that init-time creation, given
it's done against the possible mask? I think the only thing that might need
doing at later hotplug is making sure the preempt count is right (secondary
startups seem to all prepare the idle task by issuing a preempt_disable()).