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: <20180719131509.GD5595@lerouge>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:15:10 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mhillenb@...zon.de,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Make need_resched() return true when rcu_urgent_qs
 requested

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 08:11:52PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 02:32:06AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 06:03:42PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 09:49 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > And here is an updated v4.15 patch with Marius's Reported-by and David's
> > > > fix to my lost exclamation point.
> > > 
> > > Thanks. Are you sending the original version of that to Linus? It'd be
> > > useful to have the commit ID so that we can watch for it landing, and
> > > chase this one up to Greg.
> > > 
> > > As discussed on IRC, this patch reduces synchronize_sched() latency for
> > > us from ~4600s to ~160ms, which is nice.
> > > 
> > > However, it isn't going to be sufficient in the NO_HZ_FULL case. For
> > > that you want a patch like the one below, which happily reduces the
> > > latency in our (!NO_HZ_FULL) case still further to ~40ms.
> > 
> > That is interesting. As I replied to Paul, we are already calling
> > rcu_user_enter/exit() on guest_enter/exit_irqsoff(). So I'm wondering why
> > you're seeing such an optimization by repeating those calls.
> > 
> > Perhaps the rcu_user_* somehow aren't actually called from
> > __context_tracking_enter()...? Some bug in context tracking?
> > Otherwise it's a curious side effect.
> 
> David is working with v4.15.  Is this maybe something that has changed
> since then?

Hmm, nope I think the context tracking code hasn't changed for a while.