linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk

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: <0b7b6132-a374-9636-53f9-c2e1dcec230f@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:05:40 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk

On 08/14/2017 08:28 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> But what should we do when some other (non page) wait queue runs into the
>> same problem?
> 
> Hopefully the same: root-cause it.
> 
> Once you have a test-case, it should generally be fairly simple to do
> with profiles, just seeing who the caller is when ttwu() (or whatever
> it is that ends up being the most noticeable part of the wakeup chain)
> shows up very heavily.

We have a test case but it is a customer workload.  We'll try to get
a bit more info.

> 
> And I think that ends up being true whether the "break up long chains"
> patch goes in or not. Even if we end up allowing interrupts in the
> middle, a long wait-queue is a problem.
> 
> I think the "break up long chains" thing may be the right thing
> against actual malicious attacks, but not for any actual real
> benchmark or load.

This is a concern from our customer as we could trigger the watchdog timer
by running user space workloads.  

> 
> I don't think we normally have cases of long wait-queues, though. At
> least not the kinds that cause problems. The real (and valid)
> thundering herd cases should already be using exclusive waiters that
> only wake up one process at a time.
> 
> The page bit-waiting is hopefully special. As mentioned, we used to
> have some _really_ special code for it for other reasons, and I
> suspect you see this problem with them because we over-simplified it
> from being a per-zone dynamically sized one (where the per-zone thing
> caused both performance problems and actual bugs) to being that
> "static small array".
> 
> So I think/hope that just re-introducing some dynamic sizing will help
> sufficiently, and that this really is an odd and unusual case.

I agree that dynamic sizing makes a lot of sense.  We'll check to
see if additional size to the hash table helps, assuming that the
waiters are distributed among different pages for our test case.  

Thanks.

Tim