linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] rcu: direct algorithmic SRCU implementation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1329310763.2293.78.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:59:23 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	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, josh@...htriplett.org,
	niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	patches@...aro.org, Avi Kiviti <avi@...hat.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] rcu: direct algorithmic SRCU
 implementation

On Sun, 2012-02-12 at 18:09 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The current implementation of synchronize_srcu_expedited() can cause
> severe OS jitter due to its use of synchronize_sched(), which in turn
> invokes try_stop_cpus(), which causes each CPU to be sent an IPI.
> This can result in severe performance degradation for real-time workloads
> and especially for short-interation-length HPC workloads.  Furthermore,
> because only one instance of try_stop_cpus() can be making forward progress
> at a given time, only one instance of synchronize_srcu_expedited() can
> make forward progress at a time, even if they are all operating on
> distinct srcu_struct structures.
> 
> This commit, inspired by an earlier implementation by Peter Zijlstra
> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/31/211) and by further offline discussions,
> takes a strictly algorithmic bits-in-memory approach.  This has the
> disadvantage of requiring one explicit memory-barrier instruction in
> each of srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock(), but on the other hand
> completely dispenses with OS jitter and furthermore allows SRCU to be
> used freely by CPUs that RCU believes to be idle or offline.
> 
> The update-side implementation handles the single read-side memory
> barrier by rechecking the per-CPU counters after summing them and
> by running through the update-side state machine twice.

Yeah, getting rid of that second memory barrier in srcu_read_lock() is
pure magic :-)

> This implementation has passed moderate rcutorture testing on both 32-bit
> x86 and 64-bit Power.  A call_srcu() function will be present in a later
> version of this patch.

Goodness ;-)

> @@ -131,10 +214,11 @@ int __srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *sp)
>  	int idx;
>  
>  	preempt_disable();
> -	idx = sp->completed & 0x1;
> -	barrier();  /* ensure compiler looks -once- at sp->completed. */
> -	per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, smp_processor_id())->c[idx]++;
> -	srcu_barrier();  /* ensure compiler won't misorder critical section. */
> +	idx = rcu_dereference_index_check(sp->completed,
> +					  rcu_read_lock_sched_held()) & 0x1;
> +	ACCESS_ONCE(per_cpu_ptr(sp->per_cpu_ref, smp_processor_id())->c[idx]) +=
> +		SRCU_USAGE_COUNT + 1;
> +	smp_mb(); /* B */  /* Avoid leaking the critical section. */
>  	preempt_enable();
>  	return idx;
>  }

You could use __this_cpu_* muck to shorten some of that.

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
--
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/