linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM: sleep: Replace read_lock/unlock(tasklist_lock) with rcu_read

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: <DM6PR11MB42027F9DA1B3E9B6BDFA5194FF389@DM6PR11MB4202.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:11:37 +0000
From:   "Zhang, Qiang" <Qiang.Zhang@...driver.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>
CC:     Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: sleep: Replace read_lock/unlock(tasklist_lock) with
 rcu_read_lock/unlock()



________________________________________
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>
Sent: Monday, 7 June 2021 19:45
To: Zhang, Qiang
Cc: Rafael Wysocki; Len Brown; Pavel Machek; Paul E. McKenney; Linux PM; Linux Kernel Mailing List
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: sleep: Replace read_lock/unlock(tasklist_lock) with rcu_read_lock/unlock()

[Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 8:57 AM <qiang.zhang@...driver.com> wrote:
>
> From: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@...driver.com>
>
> Using rcu_read_lock/unlock() instead of read_lock/unlock(tasklist_lock),
> the task list can be traversed in parallel to any list additions or
> removals, improve concurrency.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@...driver.com>

>This changes the reader side only AFAICS, but what about the >writer side?

Hello  rafael

In the case of holding read_lock(tasklist_lock) 
if there are a lot of tasks in the system that need to be frozen,
the read_lock(tasklist_lock)  has not been released for a short time,
when clone task,  we will acquire write_lock(tasklist_lock) and insert task to list, if  Ifcan't get the write lock all the time.  the hung task
may be trigger and report warning.

for example:

copy_process()
{........
write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
........
list_add_tail_rcu(&p->tasks, &init_task.tasks);
}

>
>What exactly is there to ensure that the updates of the list will
>remain safe after this change?

The RCU  can guarantee that the list can be traversed and added at the same time,  and in the read critical area, it is guaranteed that the task structure will not be released.

In  ./Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst , it is also explained.

 Maybe we can ask  Paul E,  Paul E what's your opinion ?

Thanks
Qiang

> ---
>  kernel/power/process.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/power/process.c b/kernel/power/process.c
> index 50cc63534486..0f8dee9ee097 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/process.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/process.c
> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(bool user_only)
>
>         while (true) {
>                 todo = 0;
> -               read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> +               rcu_read_lock();
>                 for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
>                         if (p == current || !freeze_task(p))
>                                 continue;
> @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(bool user_only)
>                         if (!freezer_should_skip(p))
>                                 todo++;
>                 }
> -               read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> +               rcu_read_unlock();
>
>                 if (!user_only) {
>                         wq_busy = freeze_workqueues_busy();
> @@ -97,13 +97,13 @@ static int try_to_freeze_tasks(bool user_only)
>                         show_workqueue_state();
>
>                 if (!wakeup || pm_debug_messages_on) {
> -                       read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> +                       rcu_read_lock();
>                         for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
>                                 if (p != current && !freezer_should_skip(p)
>                                     && freezing(p) && !frozen(p))
>                                         sched_show_task(p);
>                         }
> -                       read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> +                       rcu_read_unlock();
>                 }
>         } else {
>                 pr_cont("(elapsed %d.%03d seconds) ", elapsed_msecs / 1000,
> @@ -206,13 +206,13 @@ void thaw_processes(void)
>
>         cpuset_wait_for_hotplug();
>
> -       read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> +       rcu_read_lock();
>         for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
>                 /* No other threads should have PF_SUSPEND_TASK set */
>                 WARN_ON((p != curr) && (p->flags & PF_SUSPEND_TASK));
>                 __thaw_task(p);
>         }
> -       read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> +       rcu_read_unlock();
>
>         WARN_ON(!(curr->flags & PF_SUSPEND_TASK));
>         curr->flags &= ~PF_SUSPEND_TASK;
> @@ -233,12 +233,12 @@ void thaw_kernel_threads(void)
>
>         thaw_workqueues();
>
> -       read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> +       rcu_read_lock();
>         for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
>                 if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
>                         __thaw_task(p);
>         }
> -       read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> +       rcu_read_unlock();
>
>         schedule();
>         pr_cont("done.\n");
> --
> 2.17.1
>