linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Signal scalability series

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: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1110031544340.1489@ionos>
Date:	Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:56:26 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Signal scalability series

On Sun, 2 Oct 2011, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 03:03:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 11:16 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > I also think Thomas/Peter mentioned something about latency in
> > > delivering timer signals because of contention on the per-process
> > > siglock. They might have some more details on that. 
> > 
> > Right, so signal delivery is O(nr_threads), which precludes being able
> > to deliver signals from hardirq context, leading to lots of ugly in -rt.
> 
> Signal delivery is O(#threads)?  Delivery of fatal signal is of course
> but where do we walk all threads during non-fatal signal deliveries?
> What am I missing?

Delivery of any process wide signal can result in an O(thread) walk to
find a valid target. That's true for user space originated and kernel
space originated (e.g. posix timers) signals.
 
> > Breaking up the multitude of uses of siglock certainly seems worthwhile
> > esp. if it also allows for a cleanup of the horrid mess called
> > signal_struct (which really should be called process_struct or so).
> > 
> > And yes, aside from that the siglock can be quite contended because its
> > pretty much the one lock serializing all of the process wide state.
> 
> Hmmm... can you please be a bit more specific?  I personally has never
> seen a case where siglock becomes a problem and IIUC Matt also doesn't

Signal heavy applications suffer massivly from sighand->siglock
contention. sighand->siglock protects the world and some more and Matt
has explained it quite proper. And we have rather large code pathes
covered by it (posix-cpu-timers are the worst of all).

> have actual use case at hand.  Given the fragile nature of this part
> of kernel, it would be nice to know what the return is.

The return is finer grained locking and in the end a faster signal
delivery path which benefits everyone as we do not burden a random
interrupted task with the convoluted signal delivery because we want
to burden the task using signals with it.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/