linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] IPMI: Add parameter to limit CPU usage in kipmid

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:	Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:42:52 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	minyard@....org
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Martin Wilck <martin.wilck@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
	OpenIPMI Developers <openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPMI: Add parameter to limit CPU usage in kipmid

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:23:54 -0600
Corey Minyard <minyard@....org> wrote:

> From: Martin Wilck <martin.wilck@...fujitsu.com>
> 
> In some cases kipmid can use a lot of CPU.

Why is that?  Without this information it is hard for others to suggest
alternative implementations.

>  This adds a way to tune
> the CPU used by kipmid to help in those cases.  By setting
> kipmid_max_busy_us to a value between 100 and 500, it is possible to
> bring down kipmid CPU load to practically 0 without loosing too much
> ipmi throughput performance.  Not setting the value, or setting the
> value to zero, operation is unaffected.

Requiring the addition of a module parameter is regrettable.  It'd be
better if the code "just works".

> Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <martin.wilck@...fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
> Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>
> 
> --- linux-2.6.29.4/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c	2009-05-19 01:52:34.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.29-rc8/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c	2009-06-04 15:30:34.855398091 +0200
> @@ -297,6 +297,9 @@
>  static int force_kipmid[SI_MAX_PARMS];
>  static int num_force_kipmid;
>  
> +static unsigned int kipmid_max_busy_us[SI_MAX_PARMS];
> +static int num_max_busy_us;
> +
>  static int unload_when_empty = 1;
>  
>  static int try_smi_init(struct smi_info *smi);
> @@ -927,23 +930,56 @@
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +#define ipmi_si_set_not_busy(timespec) \
> +	do { (timespec)->tv_nsec = -1; } while (0)
> +#define ipmi_si_is_busy(timespec) ((timespec)->tv_nsec != -1)

These could have been implemented in C.  It's better that way.

> +static int ipmi_thread_busy_wait(enum si_sm_result smi_result,
> +				 const struct smi_info *smi_info,
> +				 struct timespec *busy_until)
> +{
> +	unsigned int max_busy_us = 0;
> +
> +	if (smi_info->intf_num < num_max_busy_us)
> +		max_busy_us = kipmid_max_busy_us[smi_info->intf_num];
> +	if (max_busy_us == 0 || smi_result != SI_SM_CALL_WITH_DELAY)
> +		ipmi_si_set_not_busy(busy_until);
> +	else if (!ipmi_si_is_busy(busy_until)) {
> +		getnstimeofday(busy_until);
> +		timespec_add_ns(busy_until, max_busy_us*NSEC_PER_USEC);
> +	} else {
> +		struct timespec now;
> +		getnstimeofday(&now);
> +		if (unlikely(timespec_compare(&now, busy_until) > 0)) {
> +			ipmi_si_set_not_busy(busy_until);
> +			return 0;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	return 1;
> +}

This function would benefit from some documentation.

It's a bit opaque.  The setting of timespec.tv_nsec to -1 appears to
have some magical meaning, but it's left to the reader to work out what
that meaning is.

It might be clearer if the return type was `bool', ditto local variable
`busy_wait', below.

>  static int ipmi_thread(void *data)
>  {
>  	struct smi_info *smi_info = data;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	enum si_sm_result smi_result;
> +	struct timespec busy_until;
>  
> +	ipmi_si_set_not_busy(&busy_until);
>  	set_user_nice(current, 19);
>  	while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
> +		int busy_wait;
>  		spin_lock_irqsave(&(smi_info->si_lock), flags);
>  		smi_result = smi_event_handler(smi_info, 0);
>  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&(smi_info->si_lock), flags);
> +		busy_wait = ipmi_thread_busy_wait(smi_result, smi_info,
> +						  &busy_until);
>  		if (smi_result == SI_SM_CALL_WITHOUT_DELAY)
>  			; /* do nothing */
> -		else if (smi_result == SI_SM_CALL_WITH_DELAY)
> +		else if (smi_result == SI_SM_CALL_WITH_DELAY && busy_wait)
>  			schedule();
>  		else
> -			schedule_timeout_interruptible(1);
> +			schedule_timeout_interruptible(0);
>  	}
>  	return 0;
>  }

hm, what does schedule_timeout(0) do?  It sets the timer to go off at
`jiffies' which I suppose means that the timer implementation will run
the callback at the next tick.

If there _is_ a tick.  What does it do on NOHZ kernels?

The behaviour depends on HZ (it always did).  Has it been tested to
check that performance is acceptable with HZ=100?

Again, it's too hard (IMO) to work out why the code sometimes calls
schedule() and sometimes calls schedule_timeout(0).  It's a design
decision which is best communicated with a comment, please.

> @@ -1213,6 +1249,11 @@
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(unload_when_empty, "Unload the module if no interfaces are"
>  		 " specified or found, default is 1.  Setting to 0"
>  		 " is useful for hot add of devices using hotmod.");
> +module_param_array(kipmid_max_busy_us, uint, &num_max_busy_us, 0644);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(kipmid_max_busy_us,
> +		 "Max time (in microseconds) to busy-wait for IPMI data before"
> +		 " sleeping. 0 (default) means to wait forever. Set to 100-500"
> +		 " if kipmid is using up a lot of CPU time.");
>  

--
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/