linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH 71/86] treewide: lib: remove cond

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: <3ad1798407144171b3e82e90d6b0565c@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2023 09:39:33 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Steven Rostedt' <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC:     Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "juri.lelli@...hat.com" <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        "vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        "willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>,
        "mgorman@...e.de" <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "jon.grimm@....com" <jon.grimm@....com>,
        "bharata@....com" <bharata@....com>,
        "raghavendra.kt@....com" <raghavendra.kt@....com>,
        "boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        "konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        "jgross@...e.com" <jgross@...e.com>,
        "andrew.cooper3@...rix.com" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "bristot@...nel.org" <bristot@...nel.org>,
        "mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com" <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        "geert@...ux-m68k.org" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de" <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
        "anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com" <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
        "mattst88@...il.com" <mattst88@...il.com>,
        "krypton@...ich-teichert.org" <krypton@...ich-teichert.org>,
        "richard@....at" <richard@....at>,
        "mjguzik@...il.com" <mjguzik@...il.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 71/86] treewide: lib: remove cond_resched()

From: Steven Rostedt
> Sent: 08 November 2023 19:42
> 
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 11:15:37 -0800
> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> 
> > FOr the memcpy_kunit.c cases, I don't think there are preemption
> > locations in its loops. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something? Why will
> > the memcpy test no longer produce softlockup splats?
> 
> This patchset will switch over to a NEED_RESCHED_LAZY routine, so that
> VOLUNTARY and NONE preemption models will be forced to preempt if its in
> the kernel for too long.
> 
> Time slice is over: set NEED_RESCHED_LAZY
> 
> For VOLUNTARY and NONE, NEED_RESCHED_LAZY will not preempt the kernel (but
> will preempt user space).
> 
> If in the kernel for over 1 tick (1ms for 1000Hz, 4ms for 250Hz, etc),
> if NEED_RESCHED_LAZY is still set after one tick, then set NEED_RESCHED.

Delaying the reschedule that long seems like a regression.
I'm sure a lot of the cond_resched() calls were added to cause
pre-emption much earlier than 1 tick.

I doubt the distibutions will change from VOLUTARY any time soon.
So that is what most people will be using.

	David.

> 
> NEED_RESCHED will now schedule in the kernel once it is able to regardless
> of preemption model. (PREEMPT_NONE will now use preempt_disable()).
> 
> This allows us to get rid of all cond_resched()s throughout the kernel as
> this will be the new mechanism to keep from running inside the kernel for
> too long. The watchdog is always longer than one tick.
> 
> -- Steve

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)