netdev - Re: Scalability of interface creation and deletion

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:	Sun, 8 May 2011 05:50:28 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Alex Bligh <alex@...x.org.uk>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scalability of interface creation and deletion

On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 01:18:55PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> 
> 
> --On 8 May 2011 10:35:02 +0100 Alex Bligh <alex@...x.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> >I suspect this may just mean an rcu reader holds the rcu_read_lock
> >for a jiffies related time. Though I'm having difficulty seeing
> >what that might be on a system where the net is in essence idle.
> 
> Having read the RCU docs, this can't be right, because blocking
> is not legal when in the rcu_read_lock critical section.
> 
> The system concerned is an 8 cpu system but I get comparable
> results on a 2 cpu system.
> 
> I am guessing that when the synchronize_sched() happens, all cores
> but the cpu on which that is executing are idle (at least on
> the vast majority of calls) as the machine itself is idle.
> As I understand, RCU synchronization (in the absence of lots
> of callbacks etc.) is meant to wait until it knows all RCU
> read critical sections which are running on entry have
> been left. It exploits the fact that RCU read critical sections
> cannot block by waiting for a context switch on each cpu, OR
> for that cpu to be in the idle state or running user code (also
> incompatible with a read critical section).
> 
> The fact that increasing HZ masks the problem seems to imply that
> sychronize_sched() is waiting when it shouldn't be, as it suggests
> it's waiting for a context switch. But surely it shouldn't be
> waiting for context switch if all other cpu cores are idle?
> It knows that it (the caller) doesn't hold an rcu_read_lock,
> and presumably can see the other cpus are in the idle state,
> in which case surely it should return immediately? Distribution
> of latency in synchronize_sched() looks like this:
> 
> 20-49 us 110 instances (27.500%)
> 50-99 us 45 instances (11.250%)

Really?  I am having a hard time believing this above two.  Is this really
2000-4999 us and 5000-9999 us?  That would be much more believable,
and expected on a busy system with lots of context switching.  Or on a
system with CONFIG_NO_HZ=n.

> 5000-9999 us 5 instances (1.250%)

This makes sense for a mostly-idle system with frequent short bursts
of work.

> 10000-19999 us 33 instances (8.250%)

This makes sense for a CONFIG_NO_HZ system that is idle, where there
is some amount of background work that is also using RCU grace periods.

> 20000-49999 us 4 instances (1.000%)
> 50000-99999 us 191 instances (47.750%)
> 100000-199999 us 12 instances (3.000%)

These last involve additional delays.  Possibilities include long-running
irq handlers, SMIs, or NMIs.

								Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html