linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] sched/core: Drop spinlocks on contention iff kernel is preemptible

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: <ZiqJOJEBshsQLl0M@google.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:47:52 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, 
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>, 
	Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, 
	David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>, Friedrich Weber <f.weber@...xmox.com>, 
	Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] sched/core: Drop spinlocks on contention iff
 kernel is preemptible

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024, Chen Yu wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> 
> On 2024-03-12 at 12:39:11 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Use preempt_model_preemptible() to detect a preemptible kernel when
> > deciding whether or not to reschedule in order to drop a contended
> > spinlock or rwlock.  Because PREEMPT_DYNAMIC selects PREEMPTION, kernels
> 
> It took me a while to wonder why PREEMPT_DYNAMIC selects PREEMPTION
> in Kconfig, then I assume that you mean the static config is CONFIG_PREEMPTION,
> but the live preemption model is "none" or "voluntary", which makes the
> static check of CONFIG_PREEMPTION in spin_needbreak() and rwlock_needbreak()
> invalid?

Yep, exactly.

> > diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> > index 3fcd20de6ca8..63dd8cf3c3c2 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> > @@ -462,11 +462,10 @@ static __always_inline int spin_is_contended(spinlock_t *lock)
> >   */
> >  static inline int spin_needbreak(spinlock_t *lock)
> >  {
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPTION
> > +	if (!preempt_model_preemptible())
> 
> The old version checks against static CONFIG_PREEMPTION, now we check
> the live CONFIG_PREEMPTION and static CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, just wonder
> if the rt check is needed here?

It's required, as CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y doesn't imply CONFIG_PREEMPT, and
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y is mutually exclusive with CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC.  I.e. a
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y kernel will look yield:

  CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y
  CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=n
  CONFIG_PREEMPT=n

which in turn generates:

  static inline bool preempt_model_full(void)
  {
	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT);
  }

and so just checking preempt_model_full() would incorrectly return false for
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y.