linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] sched/cpuacct: Use __this_cpu_add() instead of this_cpu

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:17:29 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, mgorman@...e.de,
        mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] sched/cpuacct: Use __this_cpu_add()
 instead of this_cpu_ptr()

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:27 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 02:53:10PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > There seems to be no difference between the two, but on some
> > architectures(e.g. x86_64), there will be optimizations for
> > __this_cpu_add(). We can disassemble the code for you to see
> > the difference between them on x86_64.
> >
> >   1) this_cpu_ptr(ca->cpuusage)->usages[index] += cputime;
> >
> >      ffffffff810d7227: add %gs:0x7ef37fa9(%rip),%rax # f1d8 <this_cpu_off>
> >      ffffffff810d722f: add %rsi,(%rax)               # %rsi is @cputime
> >
> > This result in two add instructions emitted by the compiler.
> >
> >   2) __this_cpu_add(ca->cpuusage->usages[index], cputime);
> >
> >      ffffffff810d7227: add %rsi,%gs:(%rax)           # %rsi is @cputime
> >
> > This result in only one add instruction emitted by the compiler.
> >
> > So we have enough reasons to use the __this_cpu_add().
>
> The patch is OK, but I can't take it with such complete nonsense for a
> Changelog.
>
> The reason this_cpu_add() and __this_cpu_add() exist and are different
> is for different calling context. this_cpu_*() is always safe and
> correct, but as you notice, not always optimal. __this_cpu_*() relies on
> the caller already having preemption (and or IRQs disabled) to allow for
> better code-gen.
>
> Now, the below call-sites have rq->lock taken, and this means preemption
> (and IRQs) are indeed disabled, so it is safe to use __this_cpu_*().

Thanks Peter. I will update the changelog.

>
> > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/cpuacct.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c b/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c
> > index 9fbb103834345..6448b0438ffb2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c
> > @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ void cpuacct_charge(struct task_struct *tsk, u64 cputime)
> >       rcu_read_lock();
> >
> >       for (ca = task_ca(tsk); ca; ca = parent_ca(ca))
> > -             this_cpu_ptr(ca->cpuusage)->usages[index] += cputime;
> > +             __this_cpu_add(ca->cpuusage->usages[index], cputime);
> >
> >       rcu_read_unlock();
> >  }
> > @@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ void cpuacct_account_field(struct task_struct *tsk, int index, u64 val)
> >
> >       rcu_read_lock();
> >       for (ca = task_ca(tsk); ca != &root_cpuacct; ca = parent_ca(ca))
> > -             this_cpu_ptr(ca->cpustat)->cpustat[index] += val;
> > +             __this_cpu_add(ca->cpustat->cpustat[index], val);
> >       rcu_read_unlock();
> >  }
> >
> > --
> > 2.11.0
> >



-- 
Yours,
Muchun