linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 14/41] rcu: Limit lazy-callback duration

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: <20120203040751.GA3008@leaf>
Date:	Thu, 2 Feb 2012 20:07:51 -0800
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
	fweisbec@...il.com, patches@...aro.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 14/41] rcu: Limit lazy-callback duration

On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 09:13:42AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 06:03:56PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:41:32AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Currently, a given CPU is permitted to remain in dyntick-idle mode
> > > indefinitely if it has only lazy RCU callbacks queued.  This is vulnerable
> > > to corner cases in NUMA systems, so limit the time to six seconds by
> > > default.  (Currently controlled by a cpp macro.)
> > 
> > I wonder: should this scale with the number of callbacks, or do we not
> > want to make estimates about memory usage based on that?
> 
> Interesting.  Which way would you scale it?  ;-)

Heh, I'd figured "don't wait too long if you have a giant pile of
callbacks", but I can see how the other direction could make sense as
well. :)

> > Interestingly, with kfree_rcu, we actually know at callback queuing time
> > *exactly* how much memory we'll get back by calling the callback, and we
> > could sum up those numbers.
> 
> We can indeed calculate for kfree_rcu(), but we won't be able to for
> call_rcu_lazy(), which is my current approach for cases where you cannot
> use kfree_rcu() due to (for example) freeing up a linked structure.
> A very large fraction of the call_rcu()s in the kernel could become
> call_rcu_lazy().

So, doing anything other than freeing memory makes a callback non-lazy?
Based on that, I'd find it at least somewhat surprising if any of the
current callers of call_rcu (other than synchronize_rcu() and similar)
had non-lazy callbacks.

> At some point in the future, it might make sense to tie into the
> low-memory notifier, which could potentially allow the longer timeout
> to be omitted.

Exactly the kind of thing that made me wonder about tracking the actual
amount of memory to free.  Still seems like a potentially useful
statistic to track on its own.

> My current guess is that the recent change allowing idle CPUs to
> exhaust their callback lists will make this kind of fine-tuning
> unnecessary, but we will see!

Good point; given that fix, idle CPUs should never need to wake up for
callbacks at all.

- Josh Triplett
--
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/