linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: Don't chase unnecessary quiescent states after extended grace periods

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, 24 Nov 2010 12:22:36 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu: Don't chase unnecessary quiescent states
 after extended grace periods

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:20:51AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:38:45PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > 2010/11/24 Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>:
> > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 04:45:11PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > >> 2010/11/24 Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>:
> > >> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:48:46PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > >> CPU 1, the one that was idle :-D
> > >>
> > >> So CPU 1 rdp did catch up with node and state for its completed field.
> > >> But not its pgnum yet.
> > >
> > > OK, I will need to take a closer look at the rdp->gpnum setting.
> > 
> > Ok, do you want me to resend the patch with the changelog changed accordingly
> > to our discussion or?
> 
> Please!

I take it back.  I queued the following -- your code, but updated
comment and commit message.  Please let me know if I missed anything.

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

commit 1d9d947bb882371a0877ba05207a0b996dcb38ee
Author: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Date:   Wed Nov 24 01:31:12 2010 +0100

    rcu: Don't chase unnecessary quiescent states after extended grace periods
    
    When a CPU is in an extended quiescent state, including offline and
    dyntick-idle mode, other CPUs will detect the extended quiescent state
    and respond to the the current grace period on that CPU's behalf.
    However, the locking design prevents those other CPUs from updating
    the first CPU's rcu_data state.
    
    Therefore, when this CPU exits its extended quiescent state, it must
    update its rcu_data state.  Because such a CPU will usually check for
    the completion of a prior grace period before checking for the start of a
    new grace period, the rcu_data ->completed field will be updated before
    the rcu_data ->gpnum field.  This means that if RCU is currently idle,
    the CPU will usually enter __note_new_gpnum() with ->completed set to
    the current grace-period number, but with ->gpnum set to some long-ago
    grace period number.  Unfortunately, __note_new_gpnum() will then insist
    that the current CPU needlessly check for a new quiescent state.  This
    checking can result in this CPU needlessly taking several scheduling-clock
    interrupts.
    
    This bug is harmless in most cases, but is a problem for users concerned
    with OS jitter for HPC applications or concerned with battery lifetime
    for portable SMP embedded devices.  This commit therefore makes the
    test in __note_new_gpnum() check for this situation and avoid the needless
    quiescent-state checks.
    
    Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
    Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
    Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
    Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
    Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
    Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
    Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
    Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index 5df948f..76cd5d2 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
@@ -616,8 +616,20 @@ static void __init check_cpu_stall_init(void)
 static void __note_new_gpnum(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
 {
 	if (rdp->gpnum != rnp->gpnum) {
-		rdp->qs_pending = 1;
-		rdp->passed_quiesc = 0;
+		/*
+		 * Because RCU checks for the prior grace period ending
+		 * before checking for a new grace period starting, it
+		 * is possible for rdp->gpnum to be set to the old grace
+		 * period and rdp->completed to be set to the new grace
+		 * period.  So don't bother checking for a quiescent state
+		 * for the rnp->gpnum grace period unless it really is
+		 * waiting for this CPU.
+		 */
+		if (rdp->completed != rnp->gpnum) {
+			rdp->qs_pending = 1;
+			rdp->passed_quiesc = 0;
+		}
+
 		rdp->gpnum = rnp->gpnum;
 	}
 }
--
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/