linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] Priority boosting for preemptible RCU

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]

Message-ID: <20070823131501.GC18627@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:15:01 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	josht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tytso@...ibm.com, dvhltc@...ibm.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Priority boosting for preemptible RCU

On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 03:44:44PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:54:56AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:56:39AM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > > 
> > > I feel we should still be able to use for_each_online_cpu(cpu) instead
> > > of for_each_possible_cpu. Again, there's a good chance that I might
> > > be mistaken!
> > > 
> > > How about the following ?
> > > 
> > > 	preempt_disable(); /* We Dont want cpus going down here */
> > > 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) 
> > > 		for (i = 0; i < RCU_BOOST_ELEMENTS; i++) {
> > > 			rbdp = per_cpu(rcu_boost_dat, cpu);
> > > 			sum.rbs_blocked += rbdp[i].rbs_blocked;
> > > 			sum.rbs_boost_attempt += rbdp[i].rbs_boost_attempt;
> > > 			sum.rbs_boost += rbdp[i].rbs_boost;
> > > 			sum.rbs_unlock += rbdp[i].rbs_unlock;
> > > 			sum.rbs_unboosted += rbdp[i].rbs_unboosted;
> > > 		}
> > > 	preempt_enable(); 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 	static int rcu_boost_cpu_callback(struct notifier_bloack *nb, 
> > > 					unsigned long action, void *hcpu) 
> > > 	{
> > > 		int this_cpu, cpu;
> > > 		rcu_boost_data *rbdp, *this_rbdp;
> > > 
> > > 		switch (action) {
> > > 		case CPU_DEAD:
> > > 			this_cpu = get_cpu();
> > > 			cpu = (long)hcpu;
> > > 			this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > > 			rbdp = per_cpu(rcu_boost_dat, cpu);
> > > 			this_rbdp = per_cpu(rcu_boost_dat, cpu);
> > > 			/* 
> > > 			 *  Transfer all of rbdp's statistics to
> > > 			 *  this_rbdp here.
> > > 			 */	
> > > 			 put_cpu();
> > > 	
> > > 			return NOTIFY_OK;
> > > 		}
> > > 	}
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Won't this work in this case?
> > 
> > Hello, Gautham,
> > 
> > We could do something similar.  If there was a global rcu_boost_data
> > variable that held the sums of the fields of the rcu_boost_data
> > structures for all offline CPUs, and if we used a new lock to protect
> > that global rcu_boost data variable (both when reading and when
> > CPU hotplugging), then we could indeed scan only the online CPUs'
> > rcu_boost_data elements.
> > 
> > We would also have to maintain a cpumask_t for this purpose, and
> > we would need to add a CPU's contribution when it went offline and
> > subtract it when that CPU came back online.
> 
> The additional cpumask_t beats me though! Doesn't the cpu_online_map
> suffice here? 
> The addition and subtraction of a hotplugged cpu's
> contribution from the global rcu_boost_data could be done while
> handling the CPU_ONLINE and CPU_DEAD (or CPU_UP_PREPARE
> and CPU_DOWN_PREPARE, whichever suits better), in the cpu hotplug
> callback. 
> 
> Am I missing something ?

Don't we need to synchronize the manipulation of the hotplugged CPU's
contribution and the manipulation of cpu_online_map?  Otherwise, if
stats are called for just before (or just after, depending on the
ordering of hotplug operations) the invocation will get the wrong
statistics.

> > The lock should not be a problem even on very large systems because
> > of the low frequency of statistics printing -- and of hotplug operations,
> > for that matter.
> 
> The lock is not a problem, so long as somebody else doesn't call
> the function taking the lock from their cpu-hotplug callback path :-)
> Though I don't see it happening here.

There are some ways to decrease its utilization if it should become
a problem in any case.

						Thanx, Paul

> Thanks and Regards
> gautham.
> -- 
> Gautham R Shenoy
> Linux Technology Center
> IBM India.
> "Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
> because Freedom is priceless!"
-
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/