linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online

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:	Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:51:21 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 06:03:59PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > +static inline void get_online_cpus(void)
> > +{
> > +	might_sleep();
> > +
> > +	if (current->cpuhp_ref++) {
> > +		barrier();
> > +		return;
> 
> I don't undestand this barrier()... we are going to return if we already
> hold the lock, do we really need it?
> 
> The same for put_online_cpus().

to make {get,put}_online_cpus() always behave like per-cpu lock
sections.

I don't think its ever 'correct' for loads/stores to escape the section,
even if not strictly harmful.

> > +void __get_online_cpus(void)
> >  {
> > -	if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current)
> > +	if (cpuhp_writer_task == current)
> >  		return;
> 
> Probably it would be better to simply inc/dec ->cpuhp_ref in
> cpu_hotplug_begin/end and remove this check here and in
> __put_online_cpus().

Oh indeed!

> > +     if (atomic_dec_and_test(&cpuhp_waitcount) && cpuhp_writer_task)
> > +             cpuhp_writer_wake();
> 
> cpuhp_writer_wake() here and in __put_online_cpus() looks racy...

Yeah it is. Paul already said.

> But, Peter, the main question is, why this is better than
> percpu_rw_semaphore performance-wise? (Assuming we add
> task_struct->cpuhp_ref).
> 
> If the writer is pending, percpu_down_read() does
> 
> 	down_read(&brw->rw_sem);
> 	atomic_inc(&brw->slow_read_ctr);
> 	__up_read(&brw->rw_sem);
> 
> is it really much worse than wait_event + atomic_dec_and_test?
> 
> And! please note that with your implementation the new readers will
> be likely blocked while the writer sleeps in synchronize_sched().
> This doesn't happen with percpu_rw_semaphore.

Good points both, no I don't think there's a significant performance gap
there.

I'm still hoping we can come up with something better though :/ I don't
particularly like either.


--
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/