linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] rcu/exp: Remove needless CPU up quiescent state report

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47de9739-7319-4c62-b56c-8f757612744f@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 10:07:15 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@....com>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
	Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>, rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] rcu/exp: Remove needless CPU up quiescent state
 report

On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 03:39:05PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Le Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 12:10:50PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 12:25:59AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > A CPU coming online checks for an ongoing grace period and reports
> > > a quiescent state accordingly if needed. This special treatment that
> > > shortcuts the expedited IPI finds its origin as an optimization purpose
> > > on the following commit:
> > > 
> > > 	338b0f760e84 (rcu: Better hotplug handling for synchronize_sched_expedited()
> > > 
> > > The point is to avoid an IPI while waiting for a CPU to become online
> > > or failing to become offline.
> > > 
> > > However this is pointless and even error prone for several reasons:
> > > 
> > > * If the CPU has been seen offline in the first round scanning offline
> > >   and idle CPUs, no IPI is even tried and the quiescent state is
> > >   reported on behalf of the CPU.
> > > 
> > > * This means that if the IPI fails, the CPU just became offline. So
> > >   it's unlikely to become online right away, unless the cpu hotplug
> > >   operation failed and rolled back, which is a rare event that can
> > >   wait a jiffy for a new IPI to be issued.
> > > 
> > > * But then the "optimization" applying on failing CPU hotplug down only
> > >   applies to !PREEMPT_RCU.
> > > 
> > > * This force reports a quiescent state even if ->cpu_no_qs.b.exp is not
> > >   set. As a result it can race with remote QS reports on the same rdp.
> > >   Fortunately it happens to be OK but an accident is waiting to happen.
> > > 
> > > For all those reasons, remove this optimization that doesn't look worthy
> > > to keep around.
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> > 
> > Based on discussions:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > 
> > If it was still just me doing RCU, I would skip this one, just out of an
> > abundance of caution.  But you break it, you buy it!  ;-)
> 
> I'm trying to be optimistic... ;-))

So am I.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul