linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block the readers unnecessarily

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: <20121109163538.GB26134@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:35:38 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not
	block the readers unnecessarily

On 11/08, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:41:36PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 06:41:10PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 12:07:00PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:48:49 +0100
> > > > > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The algorithm would work given rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() and
> > > > synchronize_rcu() in place of preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() and
> > > > synchronize_sched().  The real-time guys would prefer the change
> > > > to rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() and synchronize_rcu(), now that
> > > > you mention it.
> > > >
> > > > Oleg, Mikulas, any reason not to move to rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock()
> > > > and synchronize_rcu()?
> > >
> > > preempt_disable/preempt_enable is faster than
> > > rcu_read_lock/rcu_read_unlock for preemptive kernels.

Yes, I chose preempt_disable() because it is the fastest/simplest
primitive and the critical section is really tiny.

But:

> > Significantly faster in this case?  Can you measure the difference
> > from a user-mode test?

I do not think rcu_read_lock() or rcu_read_lock_sched() can actually
make a measurable difference.

> Actually, the fact that __this_cpu_add() will malfunction on some
> architectures is preemption is not disabled seems a more compelling
> reason to keep preempt_enable() than any performance improvement.  ;-)

Yes, but this_cpu_add() should work.

> > Careful.  The real-time guys might take the same every-little-bit approach
> > to latency that you seem to be taking for CPU cycles.  ;-)

Understand...


So I simply do not know. Please tell me if you think it would be
better to use rcu_read_lock/synchronize_rcu or rcu_read_lock_sched,
and I'll send the patch.

Oleg.

--
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/