linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 09/16] rcu-tasks: Add an RCU-tasks rude variant

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEXW_YRtGhiaz+86pTL2WTyx5tqrpjB-bgQbnMLXjSQXPCmYfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Mar 2020 17:45:40 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-team@...com," <kernel-team@...com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        dipankar <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Thomas Glexiner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 09/16] rcu-tasks: Add an RCU-tasks rude variant

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 5:32 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 13:32:41 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > > Just curious, why is the "rude" version better than SRCU? Seems the
> > > schedule_on_each_cpu() would be much slower than SRCU especially if
> > > there are 1000s of CPUs involved. Is there any reason that is a better
> > > alternative?
> >
> > The rude version has much faster readers, and the story I hear is that
> > there are not expected to be all that many concurrent updaters.
> >
> > But to get more detail, why not ask Steven why he chose not to use SRCU?
> > (I know the story for the BPF guys, and it is because of SRCU's read-side
> > overhead.)
>
> Same for the function side (if not even more so). This would require adding
> a srcu_read_lock() to all functions that can be traced! That would be a huge
> kill in performance. Probably to the point no one would bother even using
> function tracer.

Point well taken! Thanks,

  -Joel