| 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: <20180510172240.GA228531@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 10:22:40 -0700
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, joel.opensrc@...il.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, npiggin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [tip/core/rcu, 05/21] rcu: Make rcu_gp_cleanup() more accurately
predict need for new GP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 06:15:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:21:33AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 08:03:28PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Currently, rcu_gp_cleanup() scans the rcu_node tree in order to reset
> > > state to reflect the end of the grace period. It also checks to see
> > > whether a new grace period is needed, but in a number of cases, rather
> > > than directly cause the new grace period to be immediately started, it
> > > instead leaves the grace-period-needed state where various fail-safes
> > > can find it. This works fine, but results in higher contention on the
> > > root rcu_node structure's ->lock, which is undesirable, and contention
> > > on that lock has recently become noticeable.
> > >
> > > This commit therefore makes rcu_gp_cleanup() immediately start a new
> > > grace period if there is any need for one.
> > >
> > > It is quite possible that it will later be necessary to throttle the
> > > grace-period rate, but that can be dealt with when and if.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 16 ++++++++++------
> > > kernel/rcu/tree.h | 1 -
> > > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 17 -----------------
> > > 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > index 497f139056c7..afc5e32f0da4 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > @@ -1763,14 +1763,14 @@ rcu_start_future_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
> > > * Clean up any old requests for the just-ended grace period. Also return
> > > * whether any additional grace periods have been requested.
> > > */
> > > -static int rcu_future_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > > +static bool rcu_future_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > > {
> > > int c = rnp->completed;
> > > - int needmore;
> > > + bool needmore;
> > > struct rcu_data *rdp = this_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda);
> > >
> > > need_future_gp_element(rnp, c) = 0;
> > > - needmore = need_future_gp_element(rnp, c + 1);
> > > + needmore = need_any_future_gp(rnp);
> > > trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c,
> > > needmore ? TPS("CleanupMore") : TPS("Cleanup"));
> > > return needmore;
> > > @@ -2113,7 +2113,6 @@ static void rcu_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > > {
> > > unsigned long gp_duration;
> > > bool needgp = false;
> > > - int nocb = 0;
> > > struct rcu_data *rdp;
> > > struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> > > struct swait_queue_head *sq;
> > > @@ -2152,7 +2151,7 @@ static void rcu_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > > if (rnp == rdp->mynode)
> > > needgp = __note_gp_changes(rsp, rnp, rdp) || needgp;
> > > /* smp_mb() provided by prior unlock-lock pair. */
> > > - nocb += rcu_future_gp_cleanup(rsp, rnp);
> > > + needgp = rcu_future_gp_cleanup(rsp, rnp) || needgp;
> > > sq = rcu_nocb_gp_get(rnp);
> > > raw_spin_unlock_irq_rcu_node(rnp);
> > > rcu_nocb_gp_cleanup(sq);
> > > @@ -2162,13 +2161,18 @@ static void rcu_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > > }
> > > rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> > > raw_spin_lock_irq_rcu_node(rnp); /* Order GP before ->completed update. */
> > > - rcu_nocb_gp_set(rnp, nocb);
> > >
> > > /* Declare grace period done. */
> > > WRITE_ONCE(rsp->completed, rsp->gpnum);
> > > trace_rcu_grace_period(rsp->name, rsp->completed, TPS("end"));
> > > rsp->gp_state = RCU_GP_IDLE;
> > > + /* Check for GP requests since above loop. */
> > > rdp = this_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda);
> > > + if (need_any_future_gp(rnp)) {
> > > + trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, rsp->completed - 1,
> > > + TPS("CleanupMore"));
> > > + needgp = true;
> >
> > Patch makes sense to me.
> >
> > I didn't get the "rsp->completed - 1" bit in the call to trace_rcu_future_gp.
> > The grace period that just completed is in rsp->completed. The future one
> > should be completed + 1. What is meaning of the third argument 'c' to the
> > trace event?
>
> The thought was that the grace period must have been requested while
> rsp->completed was one less than it is now.
>
> In the current code, it uses rnp->gp_seq_needed, which is instead the grace
> period that is being requested.
Oh ok, IIUC from the code, the 'c' parameter passed to trace_rcu_future_gp is
the grace-period number in the future. Perhaps we should clarify this in the
include/trace/events/rcu.h code what this parameter means. Probably
'future_gp' or something like that.
> > Also in rcu_future_gp_cleanup, we call:
> > trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c,
> > needmore ? TPS("CleanupMore") : TPS("Cleanup"));
> > For this case, in the final trace event record, rnp->completed and c will be
> > the same, since c is set to rnp->completed before calling
> > trace_rcu_future_gp. I was thinking they should be different, do you expect
> > them to be the same?
>
> Hmmm... That does look a bit inconsistent. And it currently uses
> rnp->gp_seq instead of rnp->gp_seq_needed despite having the same
> "CleanupMore" name.
Yes I was thinking in rcu_future_gp_cleanup, the call to trace_rcu_future_gp
should be trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c + 1, needmore...);
This is because in rcu_future_gp_cleanup, c is set to rnp->completed. Just
before this point rnp->completed was set to rsp->gpnum, which marks the end of
the GP for the node. The next gp would be c + 1 right?
> Looks like a review of the calls to trace_rcu_this_gp() is in order.
Yes, I'll do some tracing and see if something else doesn't make sense to me
and let you know.
> Or did you have suggestions for name/gp assocations for this trace
> message type?
I think the name for this one is fine but also that "CleanupMore" sounds like
more clean up is needed. It could be improved to "CleanupNeedgp" or
"CleanupAndStart" or something like that.
thanks!
- Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists