linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ipmi_si_intf: use usleep

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: <20190709214602.GD19430@minyard.net>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:46:02 -0500
From:   Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipmi_si_intf: use usleep_range() instead of busy looping

On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 02:06:43PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> ipmi_thread() uses back-to-back schedule() to poll for command
> completion which, on some machines, can push up CPU consumption and
> heavily tax the scheduler locks leading to noticeable overall
> performance degradation.
> 
> This patch replaces schedule() with usleep_range(100, 200).  This
> allows the sensor readings to finish resonably fast and the cpu
> consumption of the kthread is kept under several percents of a core.

The IPMI thread was not really designed for sensor reading, it was
designed so that firmware updates would happen in a reasonable time
on systems without an interrupt on the IPMI interface.  This change
will degrade performance for that function.  IIRC correctly the
people who did the patch tried this and it slowed things down too
much.

I'm also a little confused because the CPU in question shouldn't
be doing anything else if the schedule() immediately returns here,
so it's not wasting CPU that could be used on another process.  Or
is it lock contention that is causing an issue on other CPUs?

IMHO, this whole thing is stupid; if you design hardware with
stupid interfaces (byte at a time, no interrupts) you should
expect to get bad performance.  But I can't control what the
hardware vendors do.  This whole thing is a carefully tuned
compromise.

So I can't really take this as-is.

-corey

> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> ---
>  drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> index f124a2d2bb9f..2143e3c10623 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> @@ -1010,7 +1010,7 @@ static int ipmi_thread(void *data)
>  		if (smi_result == SI_SM_CALL_WITHOUT_DELAY)
>  			; /* do nothing */
>  		else if (smi_result == SI_SM_CALL_WITH_DELAY && busy_wait)
> -			schedule();
> +			usleep_range(100, 200);
>  		else if (smi_result == SI_SM_IDLE) {
>  			if (atomic_read(&smi_info->need_watch)) {
>  				schedule_timeout_interruptible(100);