netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] v5 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods

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: <20090518075630.GA10687@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 18 May 2009 09:56:30 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	dada1@...mosbay.com, zbr@...emap.net, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com,
	paulus@...ba.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com, jengelh@...ozas.de,
	r000n@...0n.net, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] v5 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods


* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> +void sched_expedited_wake(void *unused)
> +{
> +	mutex_lock(&__get_cpu_var(sched_expedited_done_mutex));
> +	if (__get_cpu_var(sched_expedited_done_qs) ==
> +	    SCHED_EXPEDITED_QS_DONE_QS) {
> +		__get_cpu_var(sched_expedited_done_qs) =
> +			SCHED_EXPEDITED_QS_NEED_QS;
> +		wake_up(&__get_cpu_var(sched_expedited_qs_wq));
> +	}
> +	mutex_unlock(&__get_cpu_var(sched_expedited_done_mutex));
> +}

( hm, IPI handlers are supposed to be atomic. )

> +/*
> + * Kernel thread that processes synchronize_sched_expedited() requests.
> + * This is implemented as a separate kernel thread to avoid the need
> + * to mess with other tasks' cpumasks.
> + */
> +static int krcu_sched_expedited(void *arg)
> +{
> +	int cpu;
> +	int mycpu;
> +	int nwait;
> +
> +	do {
> +		wait_event_interruptible(need_sched_expedited_wq,
> +					 need_sched_expedited);
> +		smp_mb(); /* In case we didn't sleep. */
> +		if (!need_sched_expedited)
> +			continue;
> +		need_sched_expedited = 0;
> +		get_online_cpus();
> +		preempt_disable();
> +		mycpu = smp_processor_id();
> +		smp_call_function(sched_expedited_wake, NULL, 1);
> +		preempt_enable();

i might be missing something fundamental here, but why not just have 
per CPU helper threads, all on the same waitqueue, and wake them up 
via a single wake_up() call? That would remove the SMP cross call 
(wakeups do immediate cross-calls already).

Even more - we already have a per-CPU, high RT priority helper 
thread that could be reused: the per CPU migration threads. Couldnt 
we queue these requests to them? RCU is arguably closely related to 
scheduling so there's no layering violation IMO.

There's already a struct migration_req machinery that performs 
something quite similar. (do work on behalf of another task, on a 
specific CPU, and then signal completion)

Also, per CPU workqueues have similar features as well.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html