linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods

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, 11 Jul 2017 11:09:31 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        len.brown@...el.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
        arjan@...ux.intel.com, yang.zhang.wz@...il.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 06:34:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 06:09:27PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> > > > - tick_nohz_idle_enter costs 7058ns - 10726ns
> > > > - tick_nohz_idle_exit costs 8372ns - 20850ns
> > > 
> > > Right, those are horrible expensive, but skipping them isn't 'hard', the
> > > only tricky bit is finding a condition that makes sense.
> > 
> > Note you can statically disable it with nohz=0 boot parameter.
> 
> Yeah, but that's bad for power usage, nobody wants that.
> 
> > > See Mike's patch: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2839221/
> > > 
> > > Combined with the above, and possibly a better condition, that should
> > > get rid of most of this.
> > 
> > Such a patch could work well if the decision from the scheduler to not stop the tick
> > happens on idle entry.
> > 
> > Now if sched_needs_cpu() first allows to stop the tick then refuses it later
> > in the end of an idle IRQ, this won't have the desired effect. As long as ts->tick_stopped=1,
> > it stays so until we really restart the tick. So the whole costly nohz machinery stays on.
> > 
> > I guess it doesn't matter though, as we are talking about making fast idle entry so the
> > decision not to stop the tick is likely to be done once on idle entry, when ts->tick_stopped=0.
> > 
> > One exception though: if the tick is already stopped when we enter idle (full nohz case). And
> > BTW stopping the tick outside idle shouldn't be concerned here.
> > 
> > So I'd rather put that on can_stop_idle_tick().
> 
> Mike's patch much predates the existence of that function I think ;-) But
> sure..
> 
> > > 
> > > > - totally from arch_cpu_idle_enter entry to arch_cpu_idle_exit return costs
> > > >   9122ns - 15318ns.
> > > >   --In this period, rcu_idle_enter costs 1985ns - 2262ns, rcu_idle_exit costs
> > > >     1813ns - 3507ns
> > > 
> > > Is that the POPF being painful? or something else?
> > 
> > Probably that and the atomic_add_return().
> 
> I got properly lost in the RCU machinery. It wasn't at all clear to me
> if rcu_eqs_enter_common() was a slow-path function or not.

It is called on pretty much every transition to idle.

> Also, RCU_FAST_NO_HZ will make a fairly large difference here.. Paul
> what's the state of that thing, do we actually want that or not?

If you are battery powered and don't have tight real-time latency
constraints, you want it -- it has represent a 30-40% boost in battery
lifetime for some low-utilization battery-powered devices.  Otherwise,
probably not.

> But I think we can at the very least do this; it only gets called from
> kernel/sched/idle.c and both callsites have IRQs explicitly disabled by
> that point.
> 
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 51d4c3acf32d..dccf2dc8155a 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -843,13 +843,8 @@ static void rcu_eqs_enter(bool user)
>   */
>  void rcu_idle_enter(void)
>  {
> -	unsigned long flags;
> -
> -	local_irq_save(flags);

With this addition, I am all for it:

RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!irqs_disabled(), "rcu_idle_enter() invoked with irqs enabled!!!");

If you are OK with this addition, may I please have your Signed-off-by?

							Thanx, Paul

>  	rcu_eqs_enter(false);
> -	local_irq_restore(flags);
>  }
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_idle_enter);
> 
>  #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL
>  /**
>