Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1375248 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 4.5 142/238] watchdog: dont run proc_watchdog_update if new value is same as old

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  [PATCH 4.5 142/238] watchdog: dont run proc_watchdog_update if new value is same as old Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-04-10 22:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 4.5 142/238] watchdog: dont run proc_watchdog_update if  new value is same as old Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2016-04-13 00:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 4.5 142/238] watchdog: dont run proc_watchdog_update if  new value is same as old Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> - 2016-04-13 18:00 +0200

#1375248 — [PATCH 4.5 142/238] watchdog: dont run proc_watchdog_update if new value is same as old

4.5-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Joshua Hunt <johunt@akamai.com>

commit a1ee1932aa6bea0bb074f5e3ced112664e4637ed upstream.

While working on a script to restore all sysctl params before a series of
tests I found that writing any value into the
/proc/sys/kernel/{nmi_watchdog,soft_watchdog,watchdog,watchdog_thresh}
causes them to call proc_watchdog_update().

  NMI watchdog: enabled on all CPUs, permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter.
  NMI watchdog: enabled on all CPUs, permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter.
  NMI watchdog: enabled on all CPUs, permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter.
  NMI watchdog: enabled on all CPUs, permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter.

There doesn't appear to be a reason for doing this work every time a write
occurs, so only do it when the values change.

Signed-off-by: Josh Hunt <johunt@akamai.com>
Acked-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

---
 kernel/watchdog.c |    9 ++++++++-
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/kernel/watchdog.c
+++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
@@ -923,6 +923,9 @@ static int proc_watchdog_common(int whic
 		 * both lockup detectors are disabled if proc_watchdog_update()
 		 * returns an error.
 		 */
+		if (old == new)
+			goto out;
+
 		err = proc_watchdog_update();
 	}
 out:
@@ -967,7 +970,7 @@ int proc_soft_watchdog(struct ctl_table
 int proc_watchdog_thresh(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
 			 void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
 {
-	int err, old;
+	int err, old, new;
 
 	get_online_cpus();
 	mutex_lock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
@@ -987,6 +990,10 @@ int proc_watchdog_thresh(struct ctl_tabl
 	/*
 	 * Update the sample period. Restore on failure.
 	 */
+	new = ACCESS_ONCE(watchdog_thresh);
+	if (old == new)
+		goto out;
+
 	set_sample_period();
 	err = proc_watchdog_update();
 	if (err) {

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1377375 — Re: [PATCH 4.5 142/238] watchdog: dont run proc_watchdog_update if new value is same as old

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 11:35 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> 4.5-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> 
> ------------------
> 
> From: Joshua Hunt <johunt@akamai.com>
> 
> commit a1ee1932aa6bea0bb074f5e3ced112664e4637ed upstream.
> 
> While working on a script to restore all sysctl params before a series of
> tests I found that writing any value into the
> /proc/sys/kernel/{nmi_watchdog,soft_watchdog,watchdog,watchdog_thresh}
> causes them to call proc_watchdog_update().
> 
>   NMI watchdog: enabled on all CPUs, permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter.
>   NMI watchdog: enabled on all CPUs, permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter.
>   NMI watchdog: enabled on all CPUs, permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter.
>   NMI watchdog: enabled on all CPUs, permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter.
> 
> There doesn't appear to be a reason for doing this work every time a write
> occurs, so only do it when the values change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Josh Hunt <johunt@akamai.com>
> Acked-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
> Cc: Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> 
> ---
>  kernel/watchdog.c |    9 ++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
[...]
> @@ -967,7 +970,7 @@ int proc_soft_watchdog(struct ctl_table
>  int proc_watchdog_thresh(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
>  			 void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
>  {
> -	int err, old;
> +	int err, old, new;
>  
>  	get_online_cpus();
>  	mutex_lock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
> @@ -987,6 +990,10 @@ int proc_watchdog_thresh(struct ctl_tabl
>  	/*
>  	 * Update the sample period. Restore on failure.
>  	 */
> +	new = ACCESS_ONCE(watchdog_thresh);

This ACCESS_ONCE() doesn't make any sense to me.  Isn't watchdog_thresh
protected by watchdog_proc_mutex?  If a race on watchdog_thresh is
still possible then the check for old == new isn't a valid
optimisation, and if it isn't possible then ACCESS_ONCE() shouldn't be
used here.

Ben.

> +	if (old == new)
> +		goto out;
> +
>  	set_sample_period();
>  	err = proc_watchdog_update();
>  	if (err) {

-- 
Ben Hutchings
This sentence contradicts itself - no actually it doesn't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1378070 — Re: [PATCH 4.5 142/238] watchdog: dont run proc_watchdog_update if new value is same as old

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:41:43PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 11:35 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
> > 4.5-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > 
> > ------------------
> > 
> > From: Joshua Hunt <johunt@akamai.com>
> > 
> > commit a1ee1932aa6bea0bb074f5e3ced112664e4637ed upstream.
> > 
> > While working on a script to restore all sysctl params before a series of
> > tests I found that writing any value into the
> > /proc/sys/kernel/{nmi_watchdog,soft_watchdog,watchdog,watchdog_thresh}
> > causes them to call proc_watchdog_update().
> > 
> >   NMI watchdog: enabled on all CPUs, permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter.
> >   NMI watchdog: enabled on all CPUs, permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter.
> >   NMI watchdog: enabled on all CPUs, permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter.
> >   NMI watchdog: enabled on all CPUs, permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter.
> > 
> > There doesn't appear to be a reason for doing this work every time a write
> > occurs, so only do it when the values change.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Hunt <johunt@akamai.com>
> > Acked-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > 
> > ---
> >  kernel/watchdog.c |    9 ++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> > +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
> [...]
> > @@ -967,7 +970,7 @@ int proc_soft_watchdog(struct ctl_table
> >  int proc_watchdog_thresh(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> >  			 void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> >  {
> > -	int err, old;
> > +	int err, old, new;
> >  
> >  	get_online_cpus();
> >  	mutex_lock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
> > @@ -987,6 +990,10 @@ int proc_watchdog_thresh(struct ctl_tabl
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Update the sample period. Restore on failure.
> >  	 */
> > +	new = ACCESS_ONCE(watchdog_thresh);
> 

Hi Ben,

> This ACCESS_ONCE() doesn't make any sense to me.  Isn't watchdog_thresh
> protected by watchdog_proc_mutex?  If a race on watchdog_thresh is

The write accesses are, but not all the reads.

> still possible then the check for old == new isn't a valid
> optimisation, and if it isn't possible then ACCESS_ONCE() shouldn't be
> used here.

The irq and nmi handlers may read it, but not write.  So there should not be
any race of overwriting watchdog_thresh, just a race to read stale data.

I don't fully understand the use case for ACCESS_ONCE, so it is hard for me
to comment on whether or not the code paths satisfy the use cases or not.

The check for 'old == new' is a needed optimization and should not race
because of the mutex protection.

So, I don't have a good answer for you without understanding ACCESS_ONCE
better.

Cheers,
Don

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web