linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat: Reduce irqs counting performance overhead

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: <9b4208b7-f97b-047c-4dab-15bd3791e7de@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Jan 2019 17:41:39 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat: Reduce irqs counting performance overhead

On 01/07/2019 05:32 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:12:56AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> As newer systems have more and more IRQs and CPUs available in their
>> system, the performance of reading /proc/stat frequently is getting
>> worse and worse.
> Because the "roll-your-own" per-cpu counter implementaiton has been
> optimised for low possible addition overhead on the premise that
> summing the counters is rare and isn't a performance issue. This
> patchset is a direct indication that this "summing is rare and can
> be slow" premise is now invalid.
>
> We have percpu counter infrastructure that trades off a small amount
> of addition overhead for zero-cost reading of the counter value.
> i.e. why not just convert this whole mess to percpu_counters and
> then just use percpu_counter_read_positive()? Then we just don't
> care how often userspace reads the /proc file because there is no
> summing involved at all...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.

Yes, percpu_counter_read_positive() is cheap. However, you still need to
pay the price somewhere. In the case of percpu_counter, the update is
more expensive.

I would say the percentage of applications that will hit this problem is
small. But for them, this problem has some significant performance overhead.

Cheers,
Longman