linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched, timer: Use atomics for thread_group

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: <20150305161611.GE5773@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:16:11 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Scott Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched, timer: Use atomics for thread_group_cputimer
 to improve scalability

On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 05:00:05PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 07:56:59AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:35:09PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > So, in the case we are calling that right after setting cputimer->running, I guess we are fine
> > > because we just updated cputimer with the freshest values.
> > > 
> > > But if we are reading this a while after, say several ticks further, there is a chance that
> > > we read stale values since we don't lock anymore.
> > > 
> > > I don't know if it matters or not, I guess it depends how stale it can be and how much precision
> > > we expect from posix cpu timers. It probably doesn't matter.
> > > 
> > > But just in case, atomic64_read_return(&cputimer->utime, 0) would make sure we get the freshest
> > > value because it performs a full barrier, at the cost of more overhead of course.
> > 
> > Well, if we are running within a guest OS, we might be delayed at any point
> > for quite some time.  Even with interrupts disabled.
> 
> You mean delayed because of the overhead of atomic_add_return() or the stale value
> of cptimer-> fields? 

Because of preemption of the guest OS's VCPUs by the host OS.

								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/