linux-kernel - Re: [tip:sched/core] sched: Lower chances of cputime scaling overflow

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: <CA+55aFway4C89fTewKvED4RvFLaNdM-BVtkJ2YChsvracLKiyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:38:37 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched: Lower chances of cputime scaling overflow

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 15:01 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
>> Thoughts?
>
> Would something like the below work?

Ugh, this is hard to think about, it's also fairly inefficient.

>  static cputime_t scale_stime(u64 stime, u64 rtime, u64 total)
>  {
> -       u64 rem, res, scaled;
> +       int stime_fls = fls64(stime);
> +       int total_fls = fls64(total);
> +       int rtime_fls = fls64(rtime);

Doing "fls64()" unconditionally is quite expensive on some
architectures, and if I am not mistaken, the *common* case (by far) is
that all these values fit in 32 bits, no?

So let's re-think the whole thing entirely. First, let's throw away
the uncommon case, and we'll come back to it later:

    if (unlikely((stime | total | rtime) >> 32)
         return uncommon_case(stime, total, rtime);

and now we know we have the simple case where everything is in 32
bits, and we can just do the trivial

    /* Make sure gcc understands that this is a 32x32->64 multiply,
followed by a 64/32->64 divide */
    return div_u64((u64) (u32) stime * (u64) (u32) rtime, (u32)total);

which is the *cheapest* possible case of scale_stime(), with the
simplified multiply and divide. Agreed? This is cheap even on 32-bit.
Well, relatively.

Do we agree that this is (a) the common case that we need to worry
about from performance and (b) simple, understandable and efficient?

Now, let's look at the uncommon case, and I lied, I'm not going to
actually do it as a "uncommon_case()" function, I'm going to do this
as a "let us simplify the uncommon case until it *looks* like the
common case". IOW, in this uncommon thing, the aim is simply to just
reduce stime/rtime/total to the point where they are 32 bits. Ok? And
let's keep it simple again.

So *now*, once we are in the uncommon case, let's start counting bits.
Like this:

    /* We know one of the values has a bit set in the high 32 bits */
    for (;;) {
        /* Make sure "stime" is the bigger of stime/rtime */
        if (rtime > stime) {
            u64 tmp = stime; stime = rtime; rtime = tmp;
        }

        /* Do we need to balance stime/rtime bits? */
        if (stime >> 32) {
            if (rtime >> 31)
                goto drop_precision;

            /* We can grow rtime and shrink stime and try to make them
both fit */
            rtime <<= 1;
            stime >>= 1;
            continue;
        }

        /* stime/rtime fits in 32 bits, how about total? */
        if (!(total >> 32))
            break;

drop_precision:
        /* We drop from stime, it has more bits than rtime */
        stime >>= 1;
        total >>= 1;
    }

The above is totally untested, but each step is pretty damn simple and
fairly cheap. Sure, it's a loop, but it's bounded to 32 (cheap)
iterations, and the normal case is that it's not done at all, or done
only a few times.

And the advantage is that the end result is always that simple
32x32/32 case that we started out with as the common case.

I dunno. Maybe I'm overlooking something, and the above is horrible,
but the above seems reasonably efficient if not optimal, and
*understandable*.

                    Linus
--
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/