| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20120626170457.GA31175@mail.hallyn.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:04:57 +0000
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] CLONE_NEWIPC and exit_group()
Quoting Kirill A. Shutemov (kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com):
> Hi,
>
> Patch to move kern_unmount() out of exit_group() code path is below.
> Dmitry, could you check if it's beneficial for your use-case?
Hi,
sorry, I don't seem to have the thread handy for contest. What is the
point of this? The work being moved was not being done under lock,
so what is this meant to gain?
> Results are not that impressive. Microbenchmark:
>
> #define _GNU_SOURCE
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <sched.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <sys/wait.h>
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> int i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
> if (fork())
> continue;
>
> unshare(CLONE_NEWIPC);
> exit(0);
> }
>
> while (wait(NULL) > 0)
> ;
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> Before:
>
> Performance counter stats for './test' (10 runs):
>
> 2645.849247 task-clock # 3.203 CPUs utilized ( +- 3.43% )
> 2,375 context-switches # 0.001 M/sec ( +- 0.35% )
> 1,579 CPU-migrations # 0.001 M/sec ( +- 0.90% )
> 37,516 page-faults # 0.014 M/sec ( +- 0.44% )
> 5,739,887,800 cycles # 2.169 GHz ( +- 3.50% ) [84.21%]
> 5,126,092,712 stalled-cycles-frontend # 89.31% frontend cycles idle ( +- 3.78% ) [84.47%]
> 3,779,607,146 stalled-cycles-backend # 65.85% backend cycles idle ( +- 4.06% ) [68.26%]
> 1,210,768,660 instructions # 0.21 insns per cycle
> # 4.23 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 1.01% ) [86.28%]
> 213,318,802 branches # 80.624 M/sec ( +- 1.16% ) [84.49%]
> 2,417,038 branch-misses # 1.13% of all branches ( +- 0.70% ) [84.55%]
>
> 0.826165497 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.26% )
>
> After:
>
> Performance counter stats for './test' (10 runs):
>
> 4248.846649 task-clock # 6.370 CPUs utilized ( +- 13.50% )
> 2,343 context-switches # 0.001 M/sec ( +- 1.51% )
> 1,624 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 2.53% )
> 37,416 page-faults # 0.009 M/sec ( +- 0.41% )
> 9,314,096,247 cycles # 2.192 GHz ( +- 13.64% ) [83.75%]
> 8,482,679,429 stalled-cycles-frontend # 91.07% frontend cycles idle ( +- 14.46% ) [83.79%]
> 5,807,497,239 stalled-cycles-backend # 62.35% backend cycles idle ( +- 14.79% ) [67.65%]
> 1,556,594,531 instructions # 0.17 insns per cycle
> # 5.45 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 5.41% ) [85.00%]
> 282,682,358 branches # 66.532 M/sec ( +- 5.56% ) [84.32%]
> 2,610,583 branch-misses # 0.92% of all branches ( +- 4.42% ) [83.90%]
>
> 0.667023551 seconds time elapsed ( +- 12.10% )
>
> Any thoughts if it makes sense?
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/ipc_namespace.h b/include/linux/ipc_namespace.h
> index 5499c92..1a4cfd8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ipc_namespace.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ipc_namespace.h
> @@ -67,6 +67,8 @@ struct ipc_namespace {
>
> /* user_ns which owns the ipc ns */
> struct user_namespace *user_ns;
> +
> + struct work_struct free_ns_work;
> };
>
> extern struct ipc_namespace init_ipc_ns;
> diff --git a/ipc/namespace.c b/ipc/namespace.c
> index f362298c..edbf885 100644
> --- a/ipc/namespace.c
> +++ b/ipc/namespace.c
> @@ -16,6 +16,8 @@
>
> #include "util.h"
>
> +static void free_ns(struct work_struct *work);
> +
> static struct ipc_namespace *create_ipc_ns(struct task_struct *tsk,
> struct ipc_namespace *old_ns)
> {
> @@ -27,6 +29,7 @@ static struct ipc_namespace *create_ipc_ns(struct task_struct *tsk,
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>
> atomic_set(&ns->count, 1);
> + INIT_WORK(&ns->free_ns_work, free_ns);
> err = mq_init_ns(ns);
> if (err) {
> kfree(ns);
> @@ -116,6 +119,15 @@ static void free_ipc_ns(struct ipc_namespace *ns)
> kfree(ns);
> }
>
> +static void free_ns(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + struct ipc_namespace *ns = container_of(work, struct ipc_namespace,
> + free_ns_work);
> +
> + mq_put_mnt(ns);
> + free_ipc_ns(ns);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * put_ipc_ns - drop a reference to an ipc namespace.
> * @ns: the namespace to put
> @@ -137,8 +149,7 @@ void put_ipc_ns(struct ipc_namespace *ns)
> if (atomic_dec_and_lock(&ns->count, &mq_lock)) {
> mq_clear_sbinfo(ns);
> spin_unlock(&mq_lock);
> - mq_put_mnt(ns);
> - free_ipc_ns(ns);
> + schedule_work(&ns->free_ns_work);
> }
> }
>
> --
> Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists