linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] cgroup: rstat: only disable interrupts for the percpu lock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2023 15:51:35 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@...ux.dev>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] cgroup: rstat: only disable interrupts for the
 percpu lock

Hello, Hugh.

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 01:38:48PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > So, in general, there's a trade off between local irq service latency and
> > inducing global lock contention when using unprotected locks. With more and
> > more CPUs, the balance keeps shifting. The balance still very much depends
> > on the specifics of a given lock but yeah I think it's something we need to
> > be a lot more careful about now.
> 
> And this looks a very plausible argument to me: I'll let it sink in.

Another somewhat relevant change is that flipping irq on/off used to be
relatively expensive on older x86 cpus. I forget all details about when and
how much but they should be a lot cheaper now. No idea about !x86 cpus tho.

> But I hadn't heard that the RT folks were clamouring for more irq disabling:
> perhaps they partition their machines with more care, and are not devotees
> of high CPU counts.

I think RT folks care a lot more about raw IRQ disables. These shouldn't
actually disable IRQs on RT kernels.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun