netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu

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]

Date:	Thu, 2 May 2013 15:31:07 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper

On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 11:19:12PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> 
> 	Hello,
> 
> On Thu, 2 May 2013, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > > 	Only the new cond_resched_rcu() macro provides
> > > PREEMPT_ACTIVE flag to skip the rcu_preempt_sleep_check()
> > > call. The old macros provide locked=0 as you noticed. Does it
> > > answer your question or I'm missing something?
> > 
> > PREEMPT_ACTIVE's value is usually 0x10000000.  Did it change
> > since 3.9?  If not, rcu_sleep_check(preempt_offset & PREEMPT_ACTIVE)
> > is the same as rcu_sleep_check(0).
> 
> 	Yes, the different platforms use different bit,
> that is why I mentioned about my failed attempt at
> changing hardirq.h. PREEMPT_ACTIVE is always != 0.
> 
> 	But I don't understand what do you mean by
> 'preempt_offset & PREEMPT_ACTIVE' being always 0.
> It is always 0 for cond_resched(), cond_resched_lock()
> and cond_resched_softirq(), not for cond_resched_rcu():
> 
> (PREEMPT_ACTIVE | PREEMPT_RCU_OFFSET) & PREEMPT_ACTIVE
> should give PREEMPT_ACTIVE, not 0. We have 2 cases in
> rcu_sleep_check() for the if:
> 
> 1. !(PREEMPT_ACTIVE) => FALSE for cond_resched_rcu
> 2. !(0) => TRUE for other cond_resched_* macros
> 
> 	On x86 the code is:
> 
> __might_sleep:
>         pushl   %ebp    #
>         testl   $268435456, %ecx        #, preempt_offset
> ...
>         jne     .L240   #,
> 	// rcu_lock_map checked when PREEMPT_ACTIVE is missing
> .L240:
> 	// rcu_bh_lock_map checked

OK, apologies -- I was looking at the calls to __might_sleep() in
mainline, and missed the one that you added.  Revisiting that, a
question:

> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> +#define PREEMPT_RCU_OFFSET     1

Does this really want to be "1" instead of PREEMPT_OFFSET?

> +#else
> +#define PREEMPT_RCU_OFFSET     PREEMPT_CHECK_OFFSET
> +#endif
> +
> +extern int __cond_resched_rcu(void);
> +
> +#define cond_resched_rcu() ({                                  \
> +       __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__, PREEMPT_ACTIVE |      \
> +                                         PREEMPT_RCU_OFFSET);  \
> +       __cond_resched_rcu();                                   \
> +})
> +

For the rest, I clearly need to revisit when more alert, because right
now I am not seeing the connection to preemptible RCU's rcu_read_lock()
implementation.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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