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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAH7ZN-wPpdn6qjf_POYkrqB9c8AJ95RAgj0heSXmtKjuWDHHrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:13:26 -0700
From:	Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@...gle.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	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 7:42 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 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.
Attached

> 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.
CONFIG_PREEMPT=y is set.
We see this issue during the boot, so it supposes to be enough CPU load to
cause preemption and migration.

>                                                         Thanx, Paul
>

Download attachment ".config" of type "application/octet-stream" (118663 bytes)