linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] Add a trigger API for efficient non-blocking waiting

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:	Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:21:08 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Christian Borntraeger <cborntra@...ibm.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] Add a trigger API for efficient non-blocking
 waiting

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:34:13 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:

> There are various places in the kernel which wish to wait for a
> condition to come true while in a non-blocking context.  Existing
> examples of this are stop_machine() and smp_call_function_mask().
> (No doubt there are other instances of this pattern in the tree.)
> 
> Thus far, the only way to achieve this is by spinning with a
> cpu_relax() loop.  This is fine if the condition becomes true very
> quickly, but it is not ideal:
> 
>  - There's little opportunity to put the CPUs into a low-power state.
>    cpu_relax() may do this to some extent, but if the wait is
>    relatively long, then we can probably do better.

If this change saves a significant amount of power then we should fix
the offending callsites.

>  - In a virtual environment, spinning virtual CPUs just waste CPU
>    resources, and may steal CPU time from vCPUs which need it to make
>    progress.  The trigger API allows the vCPUs to give up their CPU
>    entirely.  The s390 people observed a problem with stop_machine
>    taking a very long time (seconds) when there are more vcpus than
>    available cpus.

If this change saves a significant amount of virtual-cpu-time then we
should fix the offending callsites.


Tell me I'm wrong...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/