linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1606151900460.5839@nanos>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:02:38 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, rt@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [patch 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 09:15:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 08:40:50AM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > The current timer wheel has some drawbacks:
> > > 
> > > 1) Cascading
> > > 
> > >    Cascading can be an unbound operation and is completely pointless in most
> > >    cases because the vast majority of the timer wheel timers are canceled or
> > >    rearmed before expiration.
> > > 
> > > 2) No fast lookup of the next expiring timer
> > > 
> > >    In NOHZ scenarios the first timer soft interrupt after a long NOHZ period
> > >    must fast forward the base time to current jiffies. As we have no way to
> > >    find the next expiring timer fast, the code loops and increments the base
> > >    time by one and checks for expired timers in each step. I've observed loops
> > >    lasting 1 ms!
> > > 
> > > There are some other issues caused by the above, but they are minor compare to
> > > those.
> > 
> > For SMP configurations, this passes light rcutorture testing.  For UP
> > builds, it complains about undefined symbols.  Builds succeed with
> > the following kneejerk patch.  Am retesting rcutorture.
> 
> And with the patch below, testing goes as well with your patch stack as
> it does without it.  So, with that patch (or equivalent):
> 
> Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> There were some complaints about increasing the size of the tiny
> configuration, FYI.

I know. The extra storage space for the deferrable stuff makes it larger along
with the extra code for avoiding all the crap which the current wheel suffers
from :) Do the tiny people need NOHZ?

> So, just out of curiosity, does anyone still run -rt on single-CPU systems?

Of course :)

Thanks,

	tglx