linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC nohz_full v2 2/7] nohz_full: Add rcu_dyntick data for scalable detection of all-idle state

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]

Date:	Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:16:01 -0700
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <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, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC nohz_full v2 2/7] nohz_full: Add rcu_dyntick data for
 scalable detection of all-idle state

On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:52:20AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:31:50AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:10:17PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > 
> > > This commit adds fields to the rcu_dyntick structure that are used to
> > > detect idle CPUs.  These new fields differ from the existing ones in
> > > that the existing ones consider a CPU executing in user mode to be idle,
> > > where the new ones consider CPUs executing in user mode to be busy.
> > 
> > Can you explain, both in the commit messages and in the comments added
> > by the next commit, *why* this code doesn't consider userspace a
> > quiescent state?
> 
> Good point!  Does the following explain it?
> 
> 	Although one of RCU's quiescent states is usermode execution,
> 	it is not a full-system idle state.  This is because the purpose
> 	of the full-system idle state is not RCU, but rather determining
> 	when accurate timekeeping can safely be disabled.  Whenever
> 	accurate timekeeping is required in a CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL kernel,
> 	at least one CPU must keep the scheduling-clock tick going.
> 	If even one CPU is executing in user mode, accurate timekeeping
> 	is requires, particularly for architectures where gettimeofday()
> 	and friends do not enter the kernel.  Only when all CPUs are
> 	really and truly idle can accurate timekeeping be disabled,
> 	allowing all CPUs to turn off the scheduling clock interrupt,
> 	thus greatly improving energy efficiency.
> 
> 	This naturally raises the question "Why is this code in RCU rather
> 	than in timekeeping?", and the answer is that RCU has the data
> 	and infrastructure to efficiently make this determination.

Good explanation, thanks.

This also naturally raises the question "How can we let userspace get
accurate time without forcing a timer tick?".

- Josh Triplett
--
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/