linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Eliminate deadlock between CPU hotplug and expedited grace periods

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: <20140903163852.GY5001@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:38:52 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
	fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com,
	<""@rjwysocki.net>, tianyu.lan@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Eliminate deadlock between CPU hotplug
 and expedited grace periods

On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 05:28:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 08:03:06AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Normal RCU grace periods avoid this by synchronizing on a lock acquired by
> > > > the RCU CPU-hotplug notifiers, but this does not work for the expedited
> > > > grace periods because the outgoing CPU can be running random tasks for
> > > > quite some time after RCU's notifier executes.  So the fix is just to
> > > > drop back to a normal grace period when there is a CPU-hotplug operation
> > > > in progress.
> > > 
> > > So why are we 'normally' doing an expedited call here anyhow? 
> > 
> > Presumably because they set either the boot parameter or
> > the sysfs variable that causes synchronize_sched() to so
> > synchronize_sched_expedited().
> 
> That's not a why but a how. Why does that option exist, why are we doing
> this?

As you say below, to reduce RCU grace-period latency on small systems.
And one level of abstraction's why is another level's how.  ;-)

> I cannot actually find a sysfs variable that controls this though; only
> the rcu_pm_notifier. It seems to favour doing an expedited call when
> suspending on 'small' machines.

See rcu_expedited_store() in kernel/ksysfs.c.  Or the rcu_expedited
module_param() in kernel/rcu/update.c.

> > > But those are not within hotplug bits. Also weren't we removing them? I
> > > thought we didn't appreciate spraying IPIs like they do?
> > 
> > I hadn't heard anything about removing them, but making the
> > expedited primitives a bit less IPI-happy is on my list.
> 
> I had some recollections of removing a fair number of expedited calls,
> but its was a long while ago so what do I know ;-)

If a given use case can tolerate the latency of normal calls, then the
normal calls certainly are preferable, no two ways about it.

> Making them less IPI happy would be good indeed.

Priority of this task duly increased.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/