linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] sched/cpuset: Bring back cpuset

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 4 May 2023 10:13:37 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it,
        claudio@...dence.eu.com, tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it,
        bristot@...hat.com, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>, Rick Yiu <rickyiu@...gle.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] sched/cpuset: Bring back cpuset_mutex

On 04/05/23 08:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 09:22:24AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> 
> >  /*
> > - * There are two global locks guarding cpuset structures - cpuset_rwsem and
> > + * There are two global locks guarding cpuset structures - cpuset_mutex and
> >   * callback_lock. We also require taking task_lock() when dereferencing a
> >   * task's cpuset pointer. See "The task_lock() exception", at the end of this
> > - * comment.  The cpuset code uses only cpuset_rwsem write lock.  Other
> > - * kernel subsystems can use cpuset_read_lock()/cpuset_read_unlock() to
> > - * prevent change to cpuset structures.
> > + * comment.  The cpuset code uses only cpuset_mutex. Other kernel subsystems
> > + * can use cpuset_lock()/cpuset_unlock() to prevent change to cpuset
> > + * structures.
> >   *
> >   * A task must hold both locks to modify cpusets.  If a task holds
> > - * cpuset_rwsem, it blocks others wanting that rwsem, ensuring that it
> > - * is the only task able to also acquire callback_lock and be able to
> > - * modify cpusets.  It can perform various checks on the cpuset structure
> > - * first, knowing nothing will change.  It can also allocate memory while
> > - * just holding cpuset_rwsem.  While it is performing these checks, various
> > - * callback routines can briefly acquire callback_lock to query cpusets.
> > - * Once it is ready to make the changes, it takes callback_lock, blocking
> > - * everyone else.
> > + * cpuset_mutex, it blocks others, ensuring that it is the only task able to
> > + * also acquire callback_lock and be able to modify cpusets.  It can perform
> > + * various checks on the cpuset structure first, knowing nothing will change.
> > + * It can also allocate memory while just holding cpuset_mutex.  While it is
> > + * performing these checks, various callback routines can briefly acquire
> > + * callback_lock to query cpusets.  Once it is ready to make the changes, it
> > + * takes callback_lock, blocking everyone else.
> >   *
> >   * Calls to the kernel memory allocator can not be made while holding
> >   * callback_lock, as that would risk double tripping on callback_lock
> > @@ -403,16 +402,16 @@ static struct cpuset top_cpuset = {
> >   * guidelines for accessing subsystem state in kernel/cgroup.c
> >   */
> >  
> > -DEFINE_STATIC_PERCPU_RWSEM(cpuset_rwsem);
> > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(cpuset_mutex);
> 
> Perhaps extend the comment to state you explicitly want a mutex for PI
> etc.. ?
> 

Sure, can do that.

Thanks!