linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] do_wait wakeup optimization

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]

Message-Id: <20081120035951.EC81815423A@magilla.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:59:51 -0800 (PST)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ratan Nalumasu <rnalumasu@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] do_wait wakeup optimization

> Patch looks sane, and look worth queueing up for the next merge window. 
> But if somebody actually has numbers and/or can talk about the real-life 
> load that made people even notice this, that would be good to add to the 
> description.

Ratan came up with the idea.  I just filled in some of the details to make
it work and clean it up.  So I'll leave this explanation to him.

> Also, do we really need to call eligible_child() twice? The real wait only 
> does it once in that "wait_consider_task()". Explanations would be good..

The reasons for a second call are unrelated in the thread_group_leader case
and the non-leader case.

In the thread_group_leader case, we might be doing the wakeup for a child
whose parent ignores SIGCHLD.  Since it self-reaps, there will be nothing
left for do_wait() to find after it wakes up.  But the wake-up is still
required.  A parent that ignores SIGCHLD can do e.g.:

	while (wait (NULL) > 0);

and that will block while there are any live children, then quickly fail
with ECHILD when there are none left.  So, we cannot short-circuit this
wake-up, even though when do_wait() wakes up and then calls eligible_child(),
it won't match due to ->exit_signal==-1 (aka task_detached()).  (Note the
second eligible_child() call is only needed when task_detached(task),
i.e. its parent ignored SIGCHLD, not the common case.)

In the non-leader case, we're dealing with the one situation where
do_notify_parent() can be called on a task other than current.
Unfortunately, in the wake_function we have no way to tell which task was
the argument to do_notify_parent().  We can only assume that it was
current, as it usually is.  So we're short-circuiting if current is an
eligible child for the particular do_wait() call, not if the task passed to
do_notify_parent() is eligible.

This one case is in release_task(); the call is on current->group_leader.
So to avoid wrongly skipping the wake-up in this case, we do a second check
on the eligibility of the group_leader.  We wouldn't need this if we knew
which task was the argument to the do_notify_parent() call doing the wake-up,
but I don't know how to communicate that down.

I haven't thought of something simpler that wouldn't have false negatives
for needs_wakeup().

Thanks,
Roland
--
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/