netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 04/45] percpu_rwlock: Implement the core design of Per-CPU Reader-Writer Locks

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: <20130210201312.GB6236@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 10 Feb 2013 21:13:12 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, tj@...nel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rjw@...k.pl, sbw@....edu,
	fweisbec@...il.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/45] percpu_rwlock: Implement the core design of
	Per-CPU Reader-Writer Locks

On 02/11, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> On 02/09/2013 04:40 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> +static void announce_writer_inactive(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
> >> +{
> >> +	unsigned int cpu;
> >> +
> >> +	drop_writer_signal(pcpu_rwlock, smp_processor_id());
> >
> > Why do we drop ourselves twice?  More to the point, why is it important to
> > drop ourselves first?
> >
>
> I don't see where we are dropping ourselves twice. Note that we are no longer
> in the cpu_online_mask, so the 'for' loop below won't include us. So we need
> to manually drop ourselves. It doesn't matter whether we drop ourselves first
> or later.

Yes, but this just reflects its usage in cpu-hotplug. cpu goes away under
_write_lock.

Perhaps _write_lock/unlock shoud use for_each_possible_cpu() instead?

Hmm... I think this makes sense anyway. Otherwise, in theory,
percpu_write_lock(random_non_hotplug_lock) can race with cpu_up?

Oleg.

--
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