linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation

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, 16 Sep 2008 11:22:47 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	josht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, schamp@....com, niv@...ibm.com,
	dvhltc@...ibm.com, ego@...ibm.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, peterz@...radead.org, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
	andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] v4 scalable classic RCU implementation

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 07:48:00PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>   
>>> That means an O(NR_CPUS) loop with disabled local interrupts :-(
>>> Is that correct?
>>>     
>>
>> With the definition of "O()" being the worst-case execution time, yes.
>> But this worst case could only happen when the system was mostly idle,
>> in which case the added overhead should not be too horribly bad.
>
> No: "was mostly running cpu_idle()". A cpu_idle() cpu could execute lots of 
> irqs and softirqs.
> So the worst case would be a system with 1 cpu/node for reserved for irq 
> handling.
> The "idle" cpu would be always in no_hz mode, even though it might be 100% 
> busy handling irqs.
> The remaning cpus might be 100% busy handling user space.
>
> And every quiescent state will end up in that O(NR_CPUS) loop.

Good point!

Indeed, if you had a 1024-CPU box acting as (say) a router/hub using
the Linux-kernel protocol stacks with no user-mode processing, then
you could indeed have the system mostly busy with no user-space code
running, and thus no quiescent states.

However, last I checked, almost all 1024-CPU boxes run HPC workloads
mostly in user mode, so this scenario would not occur.  However, again,
if it does come up, I would add an additional level of state machine
to the force_quiescent_state() family of functions, so that the scan
would be done incrementally.  Perhaps arranging for CPU groups to be
scanned by CPUs within that group.

But again, I don't want to take that step until I see someone actually
needing it.  Maybe the Vyatta guys will be there sooner than I think,
but...

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/