linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-cgroup 2/2] cgroup/cpuset: Include isolated cpuset CPUs in cpu_is

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: <8de482b5-1942-4312-8de4-6f54565ab517@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:32:53 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mrunal Patel <mpatel@...hat.com>,
        Ryan Phillips <rphillips@...hat.com>,
        Brent Rowsell <browsell@...hat.com>,
        Peter Hunt <pehunt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-cgroup 2/2] cgroup/cpuset: Include isolated cpuset CPUs in
 cpu_is_isolated() check

On 11/28/23 11:56, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 11:19:56PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> +bool cpuset_cpu_is_isolated(int cpu)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned int seq;
>> +	bool ret;
>> +
>> +	do {
>> +		seq = read_seqcount_begin(&isolcpus_seq);
>> +		ret = cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, isolated_cpus);
>> +	} while (read_seqcount_retry(&isolcpus_seq, seq));
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpuset_cpu_is_isolated);
> We're testing a bit in a bitmask. I don't think we need to worry about value
> integrity from RMW updates being broken up. ie. We can just test the bit
> without seqlock and drop the first patch?

My concern is that if we have an isolated partition with a set of 
isolated CPUs (say 2-4), I don't want any addition, deletion of changes 
made to another isolated partition affects the test of the pre-existing 
one. Testing result of the partition being change is fair game.

Depending on how the cpumask operators are implemented, we may not have 
a guarantee that testing CPU 2, for instance, will always return true. 
That is why I am adding some synchronization primitive to prevent 
racing. My original plan was to take the callback_lock. However, that 
can be somewhat costly if this API is used rather frequently, especially 
on systems with large # of CPUs. So I change it to use seqcount for read 
protection which has a much lower cost.

Regarding patch 1 on converting callback_lock to raw_spinlock_t, I can 
drop it if you have concern about that change. I just need to surround 
the write_seqcount_begin()/write_seqcount_end() calls with 
preempt_disabled()/preempt_enabled().

Cheers,
Longman