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: <20160713183223.GL7094@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:32:23 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@...gle.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 11:13:26AM -0700, Dmitry Shmidt wrote:
> 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

No funny RCU Kconfig options set -- vanilla preemptible RCU.

> > 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.

How early during boot?  Presumably after the scheduler has started...

							Thanx, Paul