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]

Message-ID: <20130928124859.GA13425@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 28 Sep 2013 14:48:59 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	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>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()

On 09/27, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 08:15:32PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > > +static bool cpuhp_readers_active_check(void)
> > >  {
> > > +	unsigned int seq = per_cpu_sum(cpuhp_seq);
> > > +
> > > +	smp_mb(); /* B matches A */
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * In other words, if we see __get_online_cpus() cpuhp_seq increment,
> > > +	 * we are guaranteed to also see its __cpuhp_refcount increment.
> > > +	 */
> > >
> > > +	if (per_cpu_sum(__cpuhp_refcount) != 0)
> > > +		return false;
> > >
> > > +	smp_mb(); /* D matches C */
> >
> > It seems that both barries could be smp_rmb() ? I am not sure the comments
> > from srcu_readers_active_idx_check() can explain mb(),

To avoid the confusion, I meant "those comments can't explain mb()s here,
in cpuhp_readers_active_check()".

> > note that
> > __srcu_read_lock() always succeeds unlike get_cpus_online().

And this cput_hotplug_ and synchronize_srcu() differ, see below.

> I see what you mean; cpuhp_readers_active_check() is all purely reads;
> there are no writes to order.
>
> Paul; is there any argument for the MB here as opposed to RMB;

Yes, Paul, please ;)

> and if
> not should we change both these and SRCU?

I guess that SRCU is more "complex" in this respect. IIUC,
cpuhp_readers_active_check() needs "more" barriers because if
synchronize_srcu() succeeds it needs to synchronize with the new readers
which call srcu_read_lock/unlock() "right now". Again, unlike cpu-hotplug
srcu never blocks the readers, srcu_read_*() always succeeds.



Hmm. I am wondering why __srcu_read_lock() needs ACCESS_ONCE() to increment
->c and ->seq. A plain this_cpu_inc() should be fine?

And since it disables preemption, why it can't use __this_cpu_inc() to inc
->c[idx]. OK, in general __this_cpu_inc() is not irq-safe (rmw) so we can't
do __this_cpu_inc(seq[idx]), c[idx] should be fine? If irq does srcu_read_lock()
it should also do _unlock.

But this is minor/offtopic.

> > >  void cpu_hotplug_done(void)
> > >  {
...
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Wait for any pending readers to be running. This ensures readers
> > > +	 * after writer and avoids writers starving readers.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	wait_event(cpuhp_writer, !atomic_read(&cpuhp_waitcount));
> > >  }
> >
> > OK, to some degree I can understand "avoids writers starving readers"
> > part (although the next writer should do synchronize_sched() first),
> > but could you explain "ensures readers after writer" ?
>
> Suppose reader A sees state == BLOCK and goes to sleep; our writer B
> does cpu_hotplug_done() and wakes all pending readers. If for some
> reason A doesn't schedule to inc ref until B again executes
> cpu_hotplug_begin() and state is once again BLOCK, A will not have made
> any progress.

Yes, yes, thanks, this is clear. But this explains "writers starving readers".
And let me repeat, if B again executes cpu_hotplug_begin() it will do
another synchronize_sched() before it sets BLOCK, so I am not sure we
need this "in practice".

I was confused by "ensures readers after writer", I thought this means
we need the additional synchronization with the readers which are going
to increment cpuhp_waitcount, say, some sort of barries.

Please note that this wait_event() adds a problem... it doesn't allow
to "offload" the final synchronize_sched(). Suppose a 4k cpu machine
does disable_nonboot_cpus(), we do not want 2 * 4k * synchronize_sched's
in this case. We can solve this, but this wait_event() complicates
the problem.

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/