linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH next] softirq: enable MAX_SOFTIRQ_TIME tuning with sysctl max_softirq_time

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: <c1b7a345-fa22-e52a-4db8-1f1288e7ad15@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 22:46:38 +0800
From:   Zhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@...wei.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:     <corbet@....net>, <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <manfred@...orfullife.com>, <jwilk@...lk.net>,
        <dvyukov@...gle.com>, <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>, <quentin.perret@....com>,
        <linux@...mhuis.info>, <alex.popov@...ux.com>,
        <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "wangxiaogang (F)" <wangxiaogang3@...wei.com>,
        "Zhoukang (A)" <zhoukang7@...wei.com>,
        Mingfangsen <mingfangsen@...wei.com>, <tedheadster@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] softirq: enable MAX_SOFTIRQ_TIME tuning with sysctl
 max_softirq_time_usecs

Dear Thomas,

On 2019/6/24 17:45, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Zhiqiang,
> 
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, Zhiqiang Liu wrote:
>>
>> Thanks again for your detailed advice.
>> As your said, the max_softirq_time_usecs setting without explaining the
>> relationship with CONFIG_HZ will give a false sense of controlability. And
>> the time accuracy of jiffies will result in a certain difference between the
>> max_softirq_time_usecs set value and the actual value, which is in one jiffies
>> range.
>>
>> I will add these infomation in the sysctl documentation and changelog in v2 patch.
> 
> Please make the sysctl milliseconds based. That's the closest approximation
> of useful units for this. This still has the same issues as explained
> before but it's not off by 3 orders of magitude anymore.
>

I have a doubt about _msecs_to_jiffies funcs, especially when input m is equal to 0.

For different HZ setttings, different _msecs_to_jiffies funcs will be chosen for
msecs_to_jiffies func. However, the performance of different _msecs_to_jiffies is
inconsistent with input m is equal to 0.
If HZ satisfies the condition: HZ <= MSEC_PER_SEC && !(MSEC_PER_SEC % HZ), the return
value of _msecs_to_jiffies func with m=0 is different with different HZ setting.
------------------------------------
| HZ |	MSEC_PER_SEC / HZ | return |
------------------------------------
|1000|		1	  |   0	   |
|500 |		2	  |   1	   |
|200 |		5	  |   1	   |
|100 |		10	  |   1	   |
------------------------------------

Why only the return value of HZ=1000 is equal to 0 with m=0 ?

Codes are given as follows,
    #if HZ <= MSEC_PER_SEC && !(MSEC_PER_SEC % HZ)
    static inline unsigned long _msecs_to_jiffies(const unsigned int m)
    {
            return (m + (MSEC_PER_SEC / HZ) - 1) / (MSEC_PER_SEC / HZ);
    }
    #elif HZ > MSEC_PER_SEC && !(HZ % MSEC_PER_SEC)
    static inline unsigned long _msecs_to_jiffies(const unsigned int m)
    {
            if (m > jiffies_to_msecs(MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET))
                    return MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET;
            return m * (HZ / MSEC_PER_SEC);
    }
    #else
    static inline unsigned long _msecs_to_jiffies(const unsigned int m)
    {
            if (HZ > MSEC_PER_SEC && m > jiffies_to_msecs(MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET))
                    return MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET;

            return (MSEC_TO_HZ_MUL32 * m + MSEC_TO_HZ_ADJ32) >> MSEC_TO_HZ_SHR32;
    }








> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
>