linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Add callback-free CPUs

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: <1346881720.2600.48.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 05 Sep 2012 23:48:40 +0200
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@...icios.com, 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,
	sbw@....edu, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Add callback-free CPUs

On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 14:39 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> RCU callback execution can add significant OS jitter and also can degrade
> scheduling latency.  This commit therefore adds the ability for selected
> CPUs ("rcu_nocbs=" boot parameter) to have their callbacks offloaded to
> kthreads.  If the "rcu_nocb_poll" boot parameter is also specified, these
> kthreads will do polling, removing the need for the offloaded CPUs to do
> wakeups.  At least one CPU must be doing normal callback processing:
> currently CPU 0 cannot be selected as a no-CBs CPU.  In addition, attempts
> to offline the last normal-CBs CPU will fail.
> 
> This is an experimental patch, so just FYI for the moment.  Known
> shortcomings include:
> 
> o       The counters should be atomic_long_t rather than atomic_t.
> 
> o       No-CBs CPUs can be configured only at boot time.
> 
> o       Only a modest number of CPUs can be configured as no-CBs CPUs.
>         Definitely a few tens, perhaps a few hundred, but no way thousands.
> 
> o       At least one CPU must remain a normal-CBs CPU.
> 
> o       Not much in the way of energy-efficiency features, though there
>         are some natural energy savings inherent in the implementation
>         
> o       The per-no-CBs-CPU kthreads are not subject to RCU priority boosting.
> 
> o       Care is required when setting the kthreads to RT priority.
> 
> Later versions will address some of them, but others are likely to remain. 

My LPC feedback in writing...

So I see RCU as consisting of two parts:
  A) Grace period tracking,
  2) Running the callbacks.

This series seems to conflate the two, it talks of doing the callbacks
elsewhere (kthread), but it also moves the grace period detectoring into
the same kthread.

The latter part is what complicates the thing. I'd suggest doing the
very simple callbacks only implementation first and leaving the grace
period machinery in the tick.

Its typically the callbacks that consume most CPU time, whereas the
grace period computations, while tricky and subtle, are relatively
cheap.

In particular, it solves the need to wait for grace periods from the
kthread (and bounce that no-nocb cpu to make progress), and it makes the
atomic list operations stuff a lot easier.


--
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/