linux-kernel - [RFC PATCH 6/6] stop_machine: optimize stop_work

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: <20150626021526.GA5717@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Jun 2015 04:15:26 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	tj@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, der.herr@...r.at,
	dave@...olabs.net, riel@...hat.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 6/6] stop_machine: optimize stop_work_alloc()

wait_event()/wake_up_all() in stop_work_alloc/stop_work_free logic
is very suboptimal because of non-exclusive wakeups. So we add the
wait_queue_func_t alloc_wake() helper which wakes the waiter up only
a) if it actually waits for a stop_work in the "freed" cpumask, and
b) only after we already set ->stop_owner = waiter.

So if 2 stop_machine()'s race with each other, the loser will likely
call schedule() only once and we will have a single wakeup.

TODO: we can optimize (and simplify!) this code more. We can remove
stop_work_alloc_one() and fold it into stop_work_alloc(), so that
prepare_to_wait() will be the outer loop. Lets do this later.

TODO: the init_waitqueue_func_entry() code in stop_work_alloc_one()
is really annoying, we need the trivial new __init_wait(wait, func)
helper.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
---
 kernel/stop_machine.c |   47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/stop_machine.c b/kernel/stop_machine.c
index 572abc9..bbfc670 100644
--- a/kernel/stop_machine.c
+++ b/kernel/stop_machine.c
@@ -63,21 +63,60 @@ static void stop_work_free(const struct cpumask *cpumask)
 
 	for_each_cpu(cpu, cpumask)
 		stop_work_free_one(cpu);
-	wake_up_all(&stop_work_wq);
+	__wake_up(&stop_work_wq, TASK_ALL, 0, (void *)cpumask);
+}
+
+struct alloc_wait {
+	wait_queue_t	wait;
+	int		cpu;
+};
+
+static int alloc_wake(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned int mode, int sync, void *key)
+{
+	struct alloc_wait *aw = container_of(wait, struct alloc_wait, wait);
+	struct cpu_stopper *stopper = &per_cpu(cpu_stopper, aw->cpu);
+	const struct cpumask *cpumask = key;
+
+	if (!cpumask_test_cpu(aw->cpu, cpumask))
+		return 0;
+	if (cmpxchg(&stopper->stop_owner, NULL, aw->wait.private) != NULL)
+		return 0;
+
+	return autoremove_wake_function(wait, mode, sync, key);
 }
 
 static struct cpu_stop_work *stop_work_alloc_one(int cpu, bool wait)
 {
 	struct cpu_stopper *stopper = &per_cpu(cpu_stopper, cpu);
+	struct task_struct *me = current;
+	struct alloc_wait aw;
 
-	if (cmpxchg(&stopper->stop_owner, NULL, current) == NULL)
+	if (cmpxchg(&stopper->stop_owner, NULL, me) == NULL)
 		goto done;
 
 	if (!wait)
 		return NULL;
 
-	__wait_event(stop_work_wq,
-		cmpxchg(&stopper->stop_owner, NULL, current) == NULL);
+	/* TODO: add __init_wait(wait, func) helper! */
+	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&aw.wait.task_list);
+	init_waitqueue_func_entry(&aw.wait, alloc_wake);
+	aw.wait.private = me;
+	aw.cpu = cpu;
+	for (;;) {
+		prepare_to_wait(&stop_work_wq, &aw.wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
+		/*
+		 * This can "falsely" fail if we race with alloc_wake() and
+		 * stopper->stop_owner is already me, in this case schedule()
+		 * won't block and the check below will notice this change.
+		 */
+		if (cmpxchg(&stopper->stop_owner, NULL, me) == NULL)
+			break;
+
+		schedule();
+		if (likely(stopper->stop_owner == me))
+			break;
+	}
+	finish_wait(&stop_work_wq, &aw.wait);
 done:
 	return &stopper->stop_work;
 }
-- 
1.5.5.1

--
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/