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]

Date:	Wed, 1 Jul 2015 19:02:42 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
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 09:17:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 04:17:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > 74b51ee152b6 ("ACPI / osl: speedup grace period in acpi_os_map_cleanup")
> 
> Really???
> 
> I am not concerned about this one.  After all, one of the first things
> that people do for OS-jitter-sensitive workloads is to get rid of
> binary blobs.  And any runtime use of ACPI as well.  And let's face it,
> if your latency-sensitive workload is using either binary blobs or ACPI,
> you have already completely lost.  Therefore, an additional expedited
> grace period cannot possibly cause you to lose any more.

This isn't solely about rt etc.. this call is a generic facility used by
however many consumers. A normal workstation/server could run into it at
relatively high frequency depending on its workload.

Even on not latency sensitive workloads I think hammering all active
CPUs is bad behaviour. Remember that a typical server class machine
easily has more than 32 CPUs these days.

> > Also, I'm not entirely convinced things like:
> > 
> > fd2ed4d25270 ("dm: add statistics support")
> > 83d5e5b0af90 ("dm: optimize use SRCU and RCU")
> > ef3230880abd ("backing-dev: use synchronize_rcu_expedited instead of synchronize_rcu")
> > 
> > Are in the 'never' happens category. Esp. the backing-dev one, it
> > triggers every time you unplug a USB stick or similar.
> 
> Which people should be assiduously avoiding for any sort of
> industrial-control system, especially given things like STUXNET.

USB sure, but a backing dev is involved in nfs clients, loopback and all
sorts of block/filesystem like setups.

unmount an NFS mount and voila expedited rcu, unmount a loopback, tada.

All you need is a regular server workload triggering any of that on a
semi regular basis and even !rt people might start to notice something
is up.

> > Rejigging a DM might indeed be rare enough; but then again, people use
> > DM explicitly so they can rejig while in operation.
> 
> They rejig DM when running OS-jitter-sensitive workloads?

Unlikely but who knows, I don't really know DM, so I can't even tell
what would trigger these.
--
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/