netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] v7 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: <4A1B3FFB.7090306@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 May 2009 09:03:55 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	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, jengelh@...ozas.de,
	r000n@...0n.net, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] v7 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods

Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> Good point -- I should at the very least add a comment to
> synchronize_sched_expedited() stating that it cannot be called holding
> any lock that is acquired in a CPU hotplug notifier.  If this restriction
> causes any problems, then your approach seems like a promising fix.


Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>

> 
>> The coupling of synchronize_sched_expedited() and migration_req
>> is largely increased:
>>
>> 1) The offline cpu's per_cpu(rcu_migration_req, cpu) is handled.
>>    See migration_call::CPU_DEAD
> 
> Good.  ;-)
> 
>> 2) migration_call() is the highest priority of cpu notifiers,
>>    So even any other cpu notifier calls synchronize_sched_expedited(),
>>    It'll not cause DEADLOCK.
> 
> You mean if using your preempt_disable() approach, right?  Unless I am
> missing something, the current get_online_cpus() approach would deadlock
> in this case.
> 

Yes, I mean if using my preempt_disable() approach. The current
get_online_cpus() approach would NOT deadlock in this case also,
we can require get_online_cpus() in cpu notifiers.

> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupreempt.h b/include/linux/rcupreempt.h
> index fce5227..78117ed 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupreempt.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupreempt.h
> @@ -74,6 +74,16 @@ extern int rcu_needs_cpu(int cpu);
>  
>  extern void __synchronize_sched(void);
>  
> +static inline void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void)
> +{
> +	synchronize_rcu();  /* Placeholder for new rcupreempt implementation. */
> +}
> +
> +static inline void synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited(void)
> +{
> +	synchronize_rcu();  /* Placeholder for new rcupreempt implementation. */
> +}
> +

Why not synchronize_rcu_bh() ?

In mainline, rcu_read_lock_bh() is not preemptable,
So I think synchronize_sched_expedited() is better.

Anyway, synchronize_rcu() is OK for me, because it is
"Placeholder for new rcupreempt implementation".

Lai

--
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