[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABeRdto-WhR3umOHz=_sERqbJct1XrBmN6XJ9CkHbKtxejuo7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 08:33:35 +0900
From: Hoeun Ryu <hoeun.ryu@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fork: free vmapped stacks in cache when cpus are offline
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017, Hoeun Ryu wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> >> On Fri 10-02-17 23:31:41, Hoeun Ryu wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>> >> > > On Fri 10-02-17 17:32:07, Hoeun Ryu wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> > >> static unsigned long *alloc_thread_stack_node(struct task_struct *tsk, int node)
>> >> > >> @@ -456,6 +474,11 @@ void __init fork_init(void)
>> >> > >> for (i = 0; i < UCOUNT_COUNTS; i++) {
>> >> > >> init_user_ns.ucount_max[i] = max_threads/2;
>> >> > >> }
>> >> > >> +
>> >> > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_VMAP_STACK
>> >> > >> + cpuhp_setup_state(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN, "vm_stack_cache",
>> >> > >> + NULL, free_vm_stack_cache);
>> >> > >> +#endif
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I am not familiar the new hotplug infrastructure so I might be missing
>> >> > > something. CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN will allocate a state which is has only
>> >> > > 30 slots available. The name also suggests this will be called on an
>> >> > > online event. Why doesn't this have its own state like other users. The
>> >> > > name should also reflect offline event CPUHP_STACK_CACHE_DEAD or
>> >> > > something like that.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll define CPUHP_VMSTACK_CACHE_DEAD before CPUHP_BP_PREPARE_DYN in
>> >> > cpuhotplug.h.
>> >> > Do you think the change is made in a separate patch or not ?
>> >>
>> >> I think it should be in a single patch. I am not sure what are the rules
>> >> to define a new state though. Let's CC Thomas.
>> >
>> > So the first question is where do you want that to be called? i.e. in which
>> > section:
>> >
>> > CPU up CPU down
>> >
>> > PREPARE DEAD <- called on some other CPU
>> > ONLINE DOWN <- called on the hotplugged CPU
>> >
>>
>> It doesn't matter whether the callback is called on the hotplugged CPU
>> or other CPUs.
>>
>> > And then the next question is whether you have ordering constraints,
>> > i.e. it must be called before or after some other callback. Only in that
>> > case you want to have an explicit state. If not, just use a dynamically
>> > allocated one.
>>
>> The cache is for virtually mapped kernel stacks. so I think the
>> callback should be called after all tasks are migrated to other CPUs.
>> It must reside before CPUHP_AP_SCHED_STARTING or CPUHP_BRINGUP_CPU.
>
> Between AP_OFFLINE and AP_SCHED_STARTING does not work because those states
> path are called on the hotplugged CPU with interrupts disabled and after
> the CPU has been taken out from the scheduler.
>
> So the proper place is the dynamic states CPUHP_BP_PREPARE_DYN. You do not
> have a prepare callback, but then it's called on an still online CPU
> _AFTER_ the hotplugged CPU vanished from the system.
>
OK, I agree.
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
