linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 1/5] rcu: Introduce for_each_leaf_node

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, 15 Dec 2016 22:38:58 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Paul E . McKenney " <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/5] rcu: Introduce for_each_leaf_node_cpu()

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:43:52AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:42:00AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > There are some places inside RCU core, where we need to iterate all mask
> > (->qsmask, ->expmask, etc) bits in a leaf node, in order to iterate all
> > corresponding CPUs. The current code iterates all possible CPUs in this
> > leaf node and then checks with the mask to see whether the bit is set.
> > 
> > However, given the fact that most bits in cpu_possible_mask are set but
> > rare bits in an RCU leaf node mask are set(in other words, ->qsmask and
> > its friends are usually more sparse than cpu_possible_mask), it's better
> > to iterate in the other way, that is iterating mask bits in a leaf node.
> > By doing so, we can save several checks in the loop, moreover, that fast
> > path checking(e.g. ->qsmask == 0) could then be consolidated into the
> > loop logic.
> > 
> > This patch introduce for_each_leaf_node_cpu() to iterate mask bits in a
> > more efficient way.
> > 
> > By design, The CPUs whose bits are set in the leaf node masks should be
> > a subset of possible CPUs, so we don't need extra check with
> > cpu_possible(), however, a WARN_ON_ONCE() is put in the loop to check
> > whether there are some nasty cases we miss.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/rcu/tree.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > index c0a4bf8f1ed0..70ef44a082e0 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > @@ -295,6 +295,22 @@ struct rcu_node {
> >  	     cpu <= rnp->grphi; \
> >  	     cpu = cpumask_next((cpu), cpu_possible_mask))
> >  
> > +
> > +#define MASK_BITS(mask)	(BITS_PER_BYTE * sizeof(mask))
> > +/*
> > + * Iterate over all CPUs a leaf RCU node which are still masked in
> > + * @mask.
> > + *
> > + * Note @rnp has to be a leaf node and @mask has to belong to @rnp.
> 
> Not a big deal, but perhaps it's worth enforcing this? If we took just
> the name of the mask here, (e.g. qsmask rather than rnp->qsmask), we
> could have the macro always use (rnp)->(mask). That would also make the
> invocations shorter.
> 

I thought about this approach, but there may be some cases it seems
inappropriate, see patch #5, passing "qsmaskinitnext" directly to the
for_each_leaf_node_cpu() might be OK, but it just break another
abstraction layer which rcu_rnp_online_cpus() provides.

> > And we
> > + * assume that no CPU is masked in @mask but not set in cpu_possible_mask. IOW,
> > + * masks of a leaf node never set a bit for an "impossible" CPU.
> > + */
> > +#define for_each_leaf_node_cpu(rnp, mask, cpu) \
> > +	for ((cpu) = (rnp)->grplo + find_first_bit(&(mask), MASK_BITS(mask)); \
> > +	     (cpu) <= (rnp)->grphi && !WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpu_possible(cpu)); \
> 
> If this happens, we'll exit the loop. If there are any reamining
> possible CPUs, we'll skip them, which would be less than ideal.
> 
> I guess this shouldn't happen anyway, but it might be worth continuing.
> 

I chose to break if we met impossible only because I wanted to avoid
using that "if(...) else" trick in an iteration macro ;-)

I don't know whether this is the first time something like this is
brought into kernel, so I'm kinda hesitating to bring this in. But seems
I got you as one supporter ;-)

Certainly, skip is better than stop.

> > +	     (cpu) = (rnp)->grplo + find_next_bit(&(mask), MASK_BITS(mask), \
> > +						  (cpu) - (rnp)->grplo + 1))
> > +
> 
> I was going to ask if that + 1 was correct, but I see that it is!
> 
> So FWIW:
> 
> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> 

Thanks ;-)

> 
> I had a go at handling my comments above, but I'm not sure it's any
> better:
> 
> #define cpu_to_grp(rnp, cpu)	((cpu) - (rnp)->grplo)
> 
> #define grp_to_cpu(rnp, cpu)	((cpu) + (rnp)->grplo)
> 
> #define node_first_cpu(rnp, mask) \
> 	grp_to_cpu(find_first_bit(&(rnp)->mask, MASK_BITS((rnp)->mask)))
> 
> #define node_next_cpu(rnp, mask, cpu)
> 	grp_to_cpu(rnp, find_next_bit(&(rnp)->mask, MASK_BITS((rnp)->mask),
> 				      cpu_to_grp(rnp, cpu) + 1))
> 

I tried something similar, but it seems bringing too many abstraction
layers just for one macro. I basically follow the rule: if the potential
users are less than three, no need to do abstraction ;-)

But thank you for looking into this ;-)

Regards,
Boqun

> #define for_each_leaf_node_cpu(rnp, mask, cpu) \
> 	for ((cpu) = node_first_cpu(rnp, mask); \
> 	     (cpu) <= (rnp)->grphi; \
> 	     (cpu) = node_next_cpu(rnp, mask, cpu)) \
> 		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpu_possible(cpu))) \
> 			continue; \
> 		else
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)