linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/27] rcu: Mark task as .need

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: <20180626213850.GA18033@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:38:50 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/27] rcu: Mark task as .need_qs less
 aggressively

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:03:03AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:08:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 05:34:52PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > If any scheduling-clock interrupt interrupts an RCU-preempt read-side
> > > critical section, the interrupted task's ->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs
> > > field is set.  This causes the outermost rcu_read_unlock() to incur the
> > > extra overhead of calling into rcu_read_unlock_special().  This commit
> > > reduces that overhead by setting ->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs only
> > > if the grace period has been in effect for more than one second.
> > 
> > Even less agressive is never setting it at all.
> 
> True, but if the CPU has been in an RCU read-side critical section for
> a full second (which is the case with high probability when .b.need_qs
> is set after this change), we might want to respond to the end of that
> critical section sooner rather than later.
> 
> > Changelog fails to explain why not setting it every tick is correct, nor
> > why 1s is a 'safe' value to use.
> 
> The RCU CPU stall warning cannot be set to less than 3s, so 1s is
> reasonable.  It is a tradeoff -- setting it lower causes a greater
> fraction of RCU read-side critical sections to incur extra overhead at
> rcu_read_unlock() time, while setting it higher keeps a lazy approach
> to reporting the quiescent state to core RCU for longer critical sections.
> 
> The upcoming RCU-bh/RCU-preempt/RCU-sched consolidation will raise
> contention and overhead, so this is one of several things done to
> lower overhead and contention to compensate for that.

And does the following updated commit log help?

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

commit aaf8af680740afc363583a6ed9549b08b613dd3d
Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed May 16 14:41:41 2018 -0700

    rcu: Mark task as .need_qs less aggressively
    
    If any scheduling-clock interrupt interrupts an RCU-preempt read-side
    critical section, the interrupted task's ->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs
    field is set.  This causes the outermost rcu_read_unlock() to incur the
    extra overhead of calling into rcu_read_unlock_special().  This commit
    reduces that overhead by setting ->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs only
    if the grace period has been in effect for more than one second.
    
    Why one second?  Because this is comfortably smaller than the minimum
    RCU CPU stall-warning timeout of three seconds, but long enough that the
    .need_qs marking should happen quite rarely.  And if your RCU read-side
    critical section has run on-CPU for a full second, it is not unreasonable
    to invest some CPU time in ending the grace period quickly.
    
    Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index dbfe90191e19..0239cf8a4be6 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -730,6 +730,7 @@ rcu_preempt_check_blocked_tasks(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp)
  */
 static void rcu_preempt_check_callbacks(void)
 {
+	struct rcu_state *rsp = &rcu_preempt_state;
 	struct task_struct *t = current;
 
 	if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0) {
@@ -738,7 +739,9 @@ static void rcu_preempt_check_callbacks(void)
 	}
 	if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0 &&
 	    __this_cpu_read(rcu_data_p->core_needs_qs) &&
-	    __this_cpu_read(rcu_data_p->cpu_no_qs.b.norm))
+	    __this_cpu_read(rcu_data_p->cpu_no_qs.b.norm) &&
+	    !t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs &&
+	    time_after(jiffies, rsp->gp_start + HZ))
 		t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs = true;
 }