linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] workqueue: Unbind workers before sending them to exit()

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: <YuAkroXHF+Zg45KU@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jul 2022 07:30:22 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Cc:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] workqueue: Unbind workers before sending them to
 exit()

Hello,

On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:21:37AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 22/07/22 19:16, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 02:53:43PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> > I think it needs something like task_set_cpumask_possible() which is
> >> > documented as being usable in (raw) spinlocks and set the task's cpumask
> >> > to cpu_possible_mask and let the later ttwu help migrate it to a
> >> > proper non-isolated CPU or let it keep running.
> >> 
> >> I'll see what I can come up with, thanks for the suggestion.
> >
> > Alternatively, we can just kill all the idle kworkers on isolated cpus at
> > the end of the booting process.
> 
> Hm so my choice of words in the changelog wasn't great - "initial setup"
> can be kernel init, but *also* setup of whatever workload is being deployed
> onto the system.
> 
> So you can be having "normal" background activity (I've seen some IRQs end
> up with schedule_work() on isolated CPUs, they're not moved away at boot
> time but rather shortly before launching the latency-sensitive app), some
> preliminary stats collection / setup to make sure the CPU will be quiet
> (e.g. refresh_vm_stats()), and *then* the application starts with
> fresh-but-no-longer-required extra pcpu kworkers assigned to its CPU.

Ah, I see. I guess we'll need to figure out how to unbind the workers then.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun