linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.24-rc8-rt1: Strange latencies on mpc5200 powerpc

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: <47A032E9.4080105@grandegger.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:18:49 +0100
From:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Luotao Fu <l.fu@...gutronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc8-rt1: Strange latencies on mpc5200 powerpc - RCU issue?

Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:38:04PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> Luotao Fu wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> ..........
>>>> Do you still get high latencies with:
>>>>
>>>>   CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST=y
>>>>   CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=y
>>>>   CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set
>>>>
>>>> With this setting I have not yet realized latencies > 150us. Could you
>>>> please give it a try? If I change one of the parameters above, latency
>>>> increases in short time.
>>> I played through some combination of the RCU options and can back your
>>> observation this time: With the rcu Tracer or the priority boost turned
>>> off I also could measure reliably extraordinory high latencies. If they
>>> are both turned on, no high latencies could be measured. Turning on the
>>> dynamic ticker however doesn't seem to cause high latencies during my
>>> test runs. Seemed like an rcu issue here.
>> I'm just making a long test run on my TQM5200 module with my good
>> settings. After more than 4.5 hours under load, cyclictest shows a
>> maximum latency of 177 us. I'm going to re-check the effect of CONFIG_NO_HZ.
>>
>>> Further such results only appear if the target board is booted with
>>> nfsrootfs. (As I already have mentioned several times before), which
>>> leads my suspection to rcu usage in nfs implementation. In this case
>>> this problem might even be platformindependent. I'd have to do some
>>> tests on one of our arm boards later to test this. Since there're no
>>> reports like this for other architecture as powerpc till now, I doubt
>>> quite if this is verifiable.
>> It's also my suspicion that the high latencies are related to the RCU
>> usage in the network layer, where it's heavily used. What is really
>> wired is that switching off CONFIG_RCU_TRACE has a negative impact on
>> the latency. As I see it, it just adds some trace points, but I might
>> have missed something.
> 
> I would expect that CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=n (as in "no" rather than "module")
> would have low latencies rather than high latencies.  So I am quite
> surprised by your result.  I will dig into this more.

Thanks a lot. To be clear. I need "CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST=y" *and*
"CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=y" to achieve reasonable latencies below 180us. With
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST or CONFIG_RCU_TRACE not set or
CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=m is rmeasure latencies up to 600us within a minute or so.

Wolfgang.



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

--
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/