linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Make need_resched() return true when rcu_urgent

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: <1531140434.18697.82.camel@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 09 Jul 2018 13:47:14 +0100
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:     paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mhillenb@...zon.de, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Make need_resched() return true when rcu_urgent_qs
 requested

On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 05:34 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The reason that David's latencies went from 100ms to one second is
> because I made this code less aggressive about invoking resched_cpu().

Ten seconds. We saw synchronize_sched() take ten seconds in 4.15. We
wouldn't have been happy with one second, but ten seconds was
considered particularly suboptimal.

> The reason I did that was to allow cond_resched_rcu_qs() to be used less
> without performance regressions.  And just plain cond_resched() on
> !PREEMPT is intended to handle the faster checks.  But KVM defeats
> this by checking need_resched() before invoking cond_resched().

It isn't just KVM. It's a relatively common construct to use
need_resched(), then drop any local locks around cond_resched().

A bare cond_resched() will call rcu_all_qs() unconditionally, and it is
kind of inconsistent that need_resched() doesn't include the
corresponding condition.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)