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  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:	Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:02:50 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <>
To:	Pranith Kumar <>
Cc:	Josh Triplett <>,
	Steven Rostedt <>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <>,
	Lai Jiangshan <>,
	"open list:READ-COPY UPDATE..." <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] rcu: Use rcu_gp_kthread_wake() to wake up

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 02:24:34AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Pranith Kumar <> wrote:
> >
> > In rcu_report_qs_rsp(), I added a pr_info() call testing if any of the above
> > conditions is true, in which case we can avoid calling wake_up(). It turns out
> > that quite a few actually are. Most of the cases where we can avoid is condition 2
> > above and condition 1 also occurs quite often. Condition 3 never happens.
> >
> A little more data. On an idle system there are about 2000 unnecessary
> wake_up() calls every 5 minutes with the most common trace being the
> follows:
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014]  [<ffffffff8109f7c5>] rcu_report_qs_rnp+0x285/0x2c0
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014]  [<ffffffff81838c09>] ? schedule_timeout+0x159/0x270
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014]  [<ffffffff8109fa21>] force_qs_rnp+0x111/0x190
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014]  [<ffffffff810a02c0>] ? synchronize_rcu_bh+0x50/0x50
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014]  [<ffffffff810a2e5f>] rcu_gp_kthread+0x85f/0xa70
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014]  [<ffffffff81086060>] ? __wake_up_sync+0x20/0x20
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014]  [<ffffffff810a2600>] ? rcu_barrier+0x20/0x20
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014]  [<ffffffff8106b4fb>] kthread+0xdb/0x100
>                   [<ffffffff8106b420>]?kthread_create_on_node+0x180/0x180
> [Fri Jul 25 02:05:49 2014]  [<ffffffff81839dac>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>                   [<ffffffff8106b420>] ?kthread_create_on_node+0x180/0x180
> With rcutorture, there are about 2000 unnecessary wake_ups() every 3
> minutes with the most common trace being:
> [Fri Jul 25 02:18:30 2014]  [<ffffffff8109f7c5>] rcu_report_qs_rnp+0x285/0x2c0
> [Fri Jul 25 02:18:30 2014]  [<ffffffff81078b15>] ? __update_cpu_load+0xe5/0x140
>                  [<ffffffffa09dc230>] ?rcu_read_delay+0x50/0x80 [rcutorture]
>                  [<ffffffff810a3728>]rcu_process_callbacks+0x6b8/0x7e0

Good to see the numbers!!!

But to evaluate this analytically, we should compare the overhead of the
wake_up() with the overhead of the extra checks in rcu_gp_kthread_wake(),
and then compare the number of unnecessary wake_up()s to the number of
calls to rcu_gp_kthread_wake() added by this patch.  This means that we
need more numbers.

For example, suppose that the extra checks cost 10ns on average, and that
a unnecessary wake_up() costs 1us on average, to that each wake_up()
is on average 100 times more expensive than the extra checks.  Then it
makes sense to ask whether the saved wake_up() save more time than the
extra tests cost.  Turning the arithmetic crank says that if more than 1%
of the wake_up()s are unnecessary, we should add the checks.

This means that if there are fewer than 200,000 grace periods in each
of the time periods, then your patch really would provide performance
benefits.  I bet that there are -way- fewer than 200,000 grace periods in
each of the time periods, but why don't you build with RCU_TRACE and look
at the "rcugp" file in RCU's debugfs hierarchy?  Or just periodically
print out the rcu_state ->completed field?

							Thanx, Paul

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists