linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 48/86] rcu: handle quiescent states for PREEMPT

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]

Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2023 19:12:32 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de, jon.grimm@....com,
        bharata@....com, raghavendra.kt@....com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        bristot@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        geert@...ux-m68k.org, glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de,
        anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com, mattst88@...il.com,
        krypton@...ich-teichert.org, David.Laight@...lab.com,
        richard@....at, mjguzik@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 48/86] rcu: handle quiescent states for
 PREEMPT_RCU=n

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 16:01:24 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:

> 
> > I stand by that being in the else statement. It looks like that would keep
> > the previous work flow.  
> 
> Ah, because PREEMPT_NEED_RESCHED is zero when we need to reschedule,
> so that when __preempt_count_dec_and_test() returns false, we might
> still be in an RCU quiescent state in the case where there was no need
> to reschedule.  Good point!
> 
> In which case...
> 
> #define preempt_enable() \
> do { \
> 	barrier(); \
> 	if (unlikely(preempt_count_dec_and_test())) \
> 		__preempt_schedule(); \
> 	else if (!sched_feat(FORCE_PREEMPT) && \
> 		 (preempt_count() & (PREEMPT_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK | HARDIRQ_MASK | NMI_MASK) == PREEMPT_OFFSET) && \
> 		 !irqs_disabled()) \
> ) \
> 			rcu_all_qs(); \
> } while (0)
> 
> Keeping rcu_all_qs() pretty much as is.  Or some or all of the "else if"
> condition could be pushed down into rcu_all_qs(), depending on whether
> Peter's objection was call-site object code size, execution path length,
> or both.  ;-)
> 
> If the objection is both call-site object code size and execution path
> length, then maybe all but the preempt_count() check should be pushed
> into rcu_all_qs().
> 
> Was that what you had in mind, or am I missing your point?

Yes, that is what I had in mind.

Should we also keep the !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU) check, which makes
the entire thing optimized out when PREEMPT_RCU is enabled?

-- Steve