| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 09:37:39 +0200
From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Josh Hunt <joshhunt00@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.19 016/175] ksoftirqd: Enable IRQs and call
cond_resched() before poking RCU
On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 05:14:50AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 22:52 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 03:00:00PM -0500, Josh Hunt wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > 3.19-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------
> > > >
> > > > From: Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>
> > > >
> > > > commit 28423ad283d5348793b0c45cc9b1af058e776fd6 upstream.
> > > >
> > > > While debugging an issue with excessive softirq usage, I encountered the
> > > > following note in commit 3e339b5dae24a706 ("softirq: Use hotplug thread
> > > > infrastructure"):
> > > >
> > > > [ paulmck: Call rcu_note_context_switch() with interrupts enabled. ]
> > > >
> > > > ...but despite this note, the patch still calls RCU with IRQs disabled.
> > > >
> > > > This seemingly innocuous change caused a significant regression in softirq
> > > > CPU usage on the sending side of a large TCP transfer (~1 GB/s): when
> > > > introducing 0.01% packet loss, the softirq usage would jump to around 25%,
> > > > spiking as high as 50%. Before the change, the usage would never exceed 5%.
> > > >
> > > > Moving the call to rcu_note_context_switch() after the cond_sched() call,
> > > > as it was originally before the hotplug patch, completely eliminated this
> > > > problem.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > kernel/softirq.c | 6 +++++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > --- a/kernel/softirq.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
> > > > @@ -656,9 +656,13 @@ static void run_ksoftirqd(unsigned int c
> > > > * in the task stack here.
> > > > */
> > > > __do_softirq();
> > > > - rcu_note_context_switch();
> > > > local_irq_enable();
> > > > cond_resched();
> > > > +
> > > > + preempt_disable();
> > > > + rcu_note_context_switch();
> > > > + preempt_enable();
> > > > +
> > > > return;
> > > > }
> > > > local_irq_enable();
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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/
> > >
> > > Sorry for the delay in noticing this, but should this be applied to
> > > 3.14-stable as well?
> >
> > Why should it?
>
> The regression inducing change arrived in 3.7-rc1.
I guess stable-3.12.y should have it too, then (with a trivial refresh
for the comment added in 3.13).
Michal Kubecek
> > And odds are, if I didn't apply it there, it was either
> > because it didn't apply, or it broke the build.
>
> a. [x] rcu_note_context_switch(cpu) -> rcu_note_context_switch()
>
> From 28423ad283d5348793b0c45cc9b1af058e776fd6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:16:18 -0800
> Subject: ksoftirqd: Enable IRQs and call cond_resched() before poking RCU
>
> While debugging an issue with excessive softirq usage, I encountered the
> following note in commit 3e339b5dae24a706 ("softirq: Use hotplug thread
> infrastructure"):
>
> [ paulmck: Call rcu_note_context_switch() with interrupts enabled. ]
>
> ...but despite this note, the patch still calls RCU with IRQs disabled.
>
> This seemingly innocuous change caused a significant regression in softirq
> CPU usage on the sending side of a large TCP transfer (~1 GB/s): when
> introducing 0.01% packet loss, the softirq usage would jump to around 25%,
> spiking as high as 50%. Before the change, the usage would never exceed 5%.
>
> Moving the call to rcu_note_context_switch() after the cond_sched() call,
> as it was originally before the hotplug patch, completely eliminated this
> problem.
>
> Signed-off-by: Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>
> ---
> kernel/softirq.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/softirq.c
> +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
> @@ -657,9 +657,13 @@ static void run_ksoftirqd(unsigned int c
> * in the task stack here.
> */
> __do_softirq();
> - rcu_note_context_switch(cpu);
> local_irq_enable();
> cond_resched();
> +
> + preempt_disable();
> + rcu_note_context_switch(cpu);
> + preempt_enable();
> +
> return;
> }
> local_irq_enable();
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists