linux-kernel - Re: Severe performance regression w/ 4.4+ on Android due to cgroup locking changes

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: <20160713144243.GF7094@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:42:43 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@...gle.com>,
	Rom Lemarchand <romlem@...gle.com>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Severe performance regression w/ 4.4+ on Android due to cgroup
 locking changes

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:21:12AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 05:00:04PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> > Hey Tejun,
> > 
> >   So Dmitry Shmidt recently noticed that with 4.4 based systems we're
> > seeing quite a bit of performance overhead from
> > __cgroup_procs_write().
> > 
> > With 4.4 tree as it stands, we're seeing __cgroup_procs_write() quite
> > often take 10s of miliseconds to execute (with max times up in the
> > 80ms range).
> > 
> > While with 4.1 it was quite often in the single usec range, and max
> > time values still in in sub-milisecond range.
> > 
> > The majority of these performance regressions seem to come from the
> > locking changes in:
> > 
> > 3014dde762f6 ("cgroup: simplify threadgroup locking")
> > and
> > 1ed1328792ff  ("sched, cgroup: replace signal_struct->group_rwsem with
> > a global percpu_rwsem")
> > 
> > Dmitry has found that by reverting these two changes (which don't
> > revert easiliy), we can get back down to tens 10-100 usec range for
> > most calls, with max values occasionally spiking to ~18ms.
> > 
> > Those two commits do talk about performance regressions, that were
> > supposedly alleviated by percpu_rwsem changes, but I'm not sure we are
> > seeing this.
> 
> Do you have 'funny' RCU options that quickly force a grace period when
> you go idle or something?
> 
> But yes, it does not surprise me to find this commit is causing
> problems.

Hmmm...  Looks like RCU is present both before and after.  But please
do send along your .config.

Speaking of .config, is CONFIG_PREEMPT=y?  If so, does the workload
feature preemption and migration?  If that is the case, you might be
seeing contention on the per-CPU cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem, given that
the second patch seems to be adding acquisitions.

							Thanx, Paul