linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry

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:	Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:51:26 -0800
From:	Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] timer: relax tick stop in idle entry

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:06:57 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:

> >           <idle>-0     [000]    30.093474: bprint:
> > __tick_nohz_idle_enter: JPAN: tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick 609 delta
> > 1000000 [JP] but sees delta is exactly 1 tick away. didn't stop
> > tick.  
> 
> If the delta is 1 tick then it is not supposed to stop it. Did you
> ever try to figure out WHY it is 1 tick?
> 
> There are two code pathes which can set it to basemono + TICK_NSEC:
> 
>         if (rcu_needs_cpu(basemono, &next_rcu) ||
>             arch_needs_cpu() || irq_work_needs_cpu()) {
>                 next_tick = basemono + TICK_NSEC;
>         } else {
>                 next_tmr = get_next_timer_interrupt(basejiff,
> basemono); ts->next_timer = next_tmr;
>                 /* Take the next rcu event into account */
>                 next_tick = next_rcu < next_tmr ? next_rcu : next_tmr;
>         }
> 
> Can you please figure out WHY the tick is requested to continue
> instead of blindly wreckaging the logic in that code?

Looks like the it hits in both cases during forced idle.
+ Josh
+ Paul

For the first case, it is always related to RCU. I found there are two
CONFIG options to avoid this undesired tick in idle loop.
1. enable CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL, offload to orcu kthreads
2. or enable CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ (enter dytick idle w/ rcu callback)

Either one works but my concern is that users may not realize the
intricate CONFIG_ options and how they translate into energy savings.
Consulted with Josh, it seems we could add a check here to recognize
the forced idle state and relax rcu_needs_cpu() to return false even it
has callbacks. Since we are blocking everybody for a short time (5 ticks
default). It should not impact synchronize and kfree rcu.

For the second case, which is much more rare, I think we do have next
timer exactly one tick away. Just don't know why tick will continue into
idle loop.
--
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/