linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nohz: Remove tick_nohz_idle_enter_norcu() / tick_nohz_idle_exit

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: <20111121052819.GI17982@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Sun, 20 Nov 2011 21:28:19 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nohz: Remove tick_nohz_idle_enter_norcu() /
 tick_nohz_idle_exit_norcu()

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:46:58AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2011/11/19 Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 05:03:44PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:11:34PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 06:48:14PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >> > > Those two APIs were provided to optimize the calls of
> >> > > tick_nohz_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_enter() into a single
> >> > > irq disabled section. This way no interrupt happening in-between would
> >> > > needlessly process any RCU job.
> >> > >
> >> > > Now we are talking about an optimization for which benefits
> >> > > have yet to be measured. Let's start simple and completely decouple
> >> > > idle rcu and dyntick idle logics to simplify.
> >> > >
> >> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> >> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> >> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> >> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> >> > > Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> >> >
> >> > Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> >>
> >> Merged, thank you both!
> >
> > And here is a patch on top of yours to allow nesting of rcu_idle_enter()
> > and rcu_idle_exit().  Thoughts?
> >
> >                                                        Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > rcu: Allow nesting of rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit()
> >
> > Running user tasks in dyntick-idle mode requires RCU to undergo
> > an idle-to-non-idle transition on each entry into the kernel, and
> > vice versa on each exit from the kernel.  However, situations where
> > user tasks cannot run in dyntick-idle mode (for example, when there
> > is more than one runnable task on the CPU in question) also require
> > RCU to undergo an idle-to-non-idle transition when coming out of the
> > idle loop (and vice versa when entering the idle loop).
> 
> Not sure what you mean about the idle loop with the dyntick-idle mode we
> can't enter when we resume to userspace with more than one task in the runqueue.
> 
> >  In this case,
> > RCU would see one idle-to-non-idle transition when the task became
> > runnable, and another when the task executed a system call.
> 
> I'm a bit confused with this changelog.
> 
> What can happen with the adaptive tickless thing is:
> 
> - When we resume to userspace after a syscall/irq/exception and we are
> not in RCU extended quiescent state, then switch to it. We may call it RCU
> idle mode I guess but that may start to be confusing.
> So this may involve several kind of nesting. From a single rcu_idle_enter()
> to more complicated scenario if we switch to RCU extended qs from an
> an interrupt: rcu_idle_exit() is called on entry of the irq, rcu_idle_enter() is
> called in the middle then finally a last call to rcu_idle_enter() in the irq
> exit at which point only we want the RCU extended qs to be effective.
> 
> - We may also exit that RCU extended qs state by involving other funny
> nesting. We have the simple syscall enter that just calls rcu_idle_exit() if
> we were in userspace in RCU extended qs.

OK, so perhaps this is what I am missing.  Do you avoid calling
rcu_idle_exit() in the case where the user-mode execution was not an
RCU extended quiescent state?  If so, then my patch is not needed,
and I can revert it.

>                                          We may also receive an IPI
> that enqueues a new task, in which case we may exit the RCU extended
> quiescent from the irq with the following nesting:
> rcu_idle_exit() on irq entry, then another call to rcu_idle_exit() to prevent
> from resuming the RCU extended quiescent state when we come back
> to userspace and finally the rcu_idle_enter() in the irq exit.
> 
> Is that what you had in mind?

I was concerned about the following scenario:

1.	A CPU is initially idle.

2.	Task A wakes up on that CPU, enters user-mode execution
	in an RCU extended quiescent state.

3.	Task B wakes up on that CPU, forcing the CPU out of its
	RCU extended quiescent state.  However, Task A is higher
	priority than is Task B, so Task A continues running.

4.	Task A invokes a system call.  If the system-call entry
	code were to again invoke rcu_idle_enter(), then my patch
	is required.  If you check and avoid invoking rcu_idle_enter()
	in this case, then my patch is not required.

							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/