| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20180328133605.u7pftfxpn3jbqire@yury-thinkpad>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:36:05 +0300
From: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luto@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] smp: introduce kick_active_cpus_sync()
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 05:45:55AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:11:54PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 12:23:28PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 08:50:04PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > > kick_all_cpus_sync() forces all CPUs to sync caches by sending broadcast IPI.
> > > > If CPU is in extended quiescent state (idle task or nohz_full userspace), this
> > > > work may be done at the exit of this state. Delaying synchronization helps to
> > > > save power if CPU is in idle state and decrease latency for real-time tasks.
> > > >
> > > > This patch introduces kick_active_cpus_sync() and uses it in mm/slab and arm64
> > > > code to delay syncronization.
> > > >
> > > > For task isolation (https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/3/589), IPI to the CPU running
> > > > isolated task would be fatal, as it breaks isolation. The approach with delaying
> > > > of synchronization work helps to maintain isolated state.
> > > >
> > > > I've tested it with test from task isolation series on ThunderX2 for more than
> > > > 10 hours (10k giga-ticks) without breaking isolation.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c | 2 +-
> > > > include/linux/smp.h | 2 ++
> > > > kernel/smp.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > mm/slab.c | 2 +-
> > > > 4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c
> > > > index 2718a77da165..9d7c492e920e 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c
> > > > @@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ int __kprobes aarch64_insn_patch_text(void *addrs[], u32 insns[], int cnt)
> > > > * synchronization.
> > > > */
> > > > ret = aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync(addrs[0], insns[0]);
> > > > - kick_all_cpus_sync();
> > > > + kick_active_cpus_sync();
> > > > return ret;
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/smp.h b/include/linux/smp.h
> > > > index 9fb239e12b82..27215e22240d 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/smp.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/smp.h
> > > > @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ int smp_call_function_any(const struct cpumask *mask,
> > > > smp_call_func_t func, void *info, int wait);
> > > >
> > > > void kick_all_cpus_sync(void);
> > > > +void kick_active_cpus_sync(void);
> > > > void wake_up_all_idle_cpus(void);
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > @@ -161,6 +162,7 @@ smp_call_function_any(const struct cpumask *mask, smp_call_func_t func,
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static inline void kick_all_cpus_sync(void) { }
> > > > +static inline void kick_active_cpus_sync(void) { }
> > > > static inline void wake_up_all_idle_cpus(void) { }
> > > >
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_UP_LATE_INIT
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> > > > index 084c8b3a2681..0358d6673850 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/smp.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> > > > @@ -724,6 +724,30 @@ void kick_all_cpus_sync(void)
> > > > }
> > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kick_all_cpus_sync);
> > > >
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * kick_active_cpus_sync - Force CPUs that are not in extended
> > > > + * quiescent state (idle or nohz_full userspace) sync by sending
> > > > + * IPI. Extended quiescent state CPUs will sync at the exit of
> > > > + * that state.
> > > > + */
> > > > +void kick_active_cpus_sync(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int cpu;
> > > > + struct cpumask kernel_cpus;
> > > > +
> > > > + smp_mb();
> > > > +
> > > > + cpumask_clear(&kernel_cpus);
> > > > + preempt_disable();
> > > > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > > > + if (!rcu_eqs_special_set(cpu))
> > >
> > > If we get here, the CPU is not in a quiescent state, so we therefore
> > > must IPI it, correct?
> > >
> > > But don't you also need to define rcu_eqs_special_exit() so that RCU
> > > can invoke it when it next leaves its quiescent state? Or are you able
> > > to ignore the CPU in that case? (If you are able to ignore the CPU in
> > > that case, I could give you a lower-cost function to get your job done.)
> > >
> > > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > What's actually needed for synchronization is issuing memory barrier on target
> > CPUs before we start executing kernel code.
> >
> > smp_mb() is implicitly called in smp_call_function*() path for it. In
> > rcu_eqs_special_set() -> rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit() path, smp_mb__after_atomic()
> > is called just before rcu_eqs_special_exit().
> >
> > So I think, rcu_eqs_special_exit() may be left untouched. Empty
> > rcu_eqs_special_exit() in new RCU path corresponds empty do_nothing() in old
> > IPI path.
> >
> > Or my understanding of smp_mb__after_atomic() is wrong? By default,
> > smp_mb__after_atomic() is just alias to smp_mb(). But some
> > architectures define it differently. x86, for example, aliases it to
> > just barrier() with a comment: "Atomic operations are already
> > serializing on x86".
> >
> > I was initially thinking that it's also fine to leave
> > rcu_eqs_special_exit() empty in this case, but now I'm not sure...
> >
> > Anyway, answering to your question, we shouldn't ignore quiescent
> > CPUs, and rcu_eqs_special_set() path is really needed as it issues
> > memory barrier on them.
>
> An alternative approach would be for me to make something like this
> and export it:
>
> bool rcu_cpu_in_eqs(int cpu)
> {
> struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = &per_cpu(rcu_dynticks, cpu);
> int snap;
>
> smp_mb(); /* Obtain consistent snapshot, pairs with update. */
> snap = READ_ONCE(&rdtp->dynticks);
> smp_mb(); /* See above. */
> return !(snap & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR);
> }
>
> Then you could replace your use of rcu_cpu_in_eqs() above with
Did you mean replace rcu_eqs_special_set()?
> the new rcu_cpu_in_eqs(). This would avoid the RMW atomic, and, more
> important, the unnecessary write to ->dynticks.
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
> Thanx, Paul
This will not work because EQS CPUs will not be charged to call
smp_mb() on exit of EQS.
Lets sync our understanding of IPI and RCU mechanisms.
Traditional IPI scheme looks like this:
CPU1: CPU2:
touch shared resource(); /* running any code */
smp_mb();
smp_call_function(); ---> handle_IPI()
{
/* Make resource visible */
smp_mb();
do_nothing();
}
And new RCU scheme for eqs CPUs looks like this:
CPU1: CPU2:
touch shared resource(); /* Running EQS */
smp_mb();
if (RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR)
set(RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK); /* Still in EQS */
/* And later */
rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit()
{
if (RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK) {
/* Make resource visible */
smp_mb();
rcu_eqs_special_exit();
}
}
Is it correct?
Yury
Powered by blists - more mailing lists