linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 0/5] Expedited grace periods encouraging normal ones

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: <20150701140031.GB3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:00:31 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	josh@...htriplett.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	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
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 0/5] Expedited grace periods encouraging
 normal ones

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:55:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:09:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 04:46:33PM -0700, josh@...htriplett.org wrote:
> > > Consider it a fairly weak concern against.  Increasing performance seems
> > > like a good thing in general; I just don't relish the future "feels less
> > > responsive" bug reports that take a long time to track down and turn out
> > > to be "this completely unrelated driver was loaded and started using
> > > expedited grace periods".
> > 
> > random drivers, or for that matter, new-code of any sort. Should _NOT_
> > be using expedited grace periods.
> > 
> > They're a horrid hack only suitable for unfixable ABI.
> 
> Let me repeat, just in case I've not been clear. Expedited grace periods
> are _BAD_ and should be avoided at all costs.

That is a bit extreme, Peter.

There should not be a problem using them for operations that are not done
while the system is running the main workload.  Which is why I am OK with
synchronize_net() using synchronize_rcu_expedited() when RTNL is held.
The operations that do that are setup/configuration operations that you
won't normally be doing while your HPC or realtime workload is running.

I believe that many of the other uses are similar.

> They perturb the _entire_ machine.

The portion of the machine that is non-idle and not executing in nohz_full
userspace, that is.  So nohz_full usermode execution is unperturbed by
expedited grace periods.

In addition, synchronize_srcu_expedited() does -not- perturb anything
other than the task actually executing synchronize_srcu_expedited().
So those read-side memory barriers are gaining you something, and there
should not be much need to push back on synchronize_srcu_expedited().

> Yes we can polish the turd, but in the end its still a turd.

And I intend to polish it even more.  ;-)

> Sadly people seem to have taken a liking to them, ooh a make RCU go
> faster button. And there's not been much if any pushback on people using
> it.

There aren't all that many uses, so I don't believe that
people are abusing it that much.  There are only four non-RCU
uses of synchronize_rcu_expedited() and only two non-RCU uses of
synchronize_sched_expedited().  In contrast, there are a couple hundred
uses of synchronize_rcu() and about 40 uses of synchronize_sched().

So I am not seeing much evidence of wanton use of either
synchronize_srcu() or synchronize_sched().

Are a huge pile of them coming in this merge window or something?
What raised your concerns on this issue?

							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/