linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: Drop rcu usage for MMIO mappings

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: <CAPcyv4gQNPNOmSVrp7epS5_10qLUuGbutQ2xz7LXnpEhkWeA_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Jun 2020 09:18:09 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Erik Kaneda <erik.kaneda@...el.com>,
        Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: Drop rcu usage for MMIO mappings

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:32 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:55 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > Recently a performance problem was reported for a process invoking a
> > non-trival ASL program. The method call in this case ends up
> > repetitively triggering a call path like:
> >
> >     acpi_ex_store
> >     acpi_ex_store_object_to_node
> >     acpi_ex_write_data_to_field
> >     acpi_ex_insert_into_field
> >     acpi_ex_write_with_update_rule
> >     acpi_ex_field_datum_io
> >     acpi_ex_access_region
> >     acpi_ev_address_space_dispatch
> >     acpi_ex_system_memory_space_handler
> >     acpi_os_map_cleanup.part.14
> >     _synchronize_rcu_expedited.constprop.89
> >     schedule
> >
> > The end result of frequent synchronize_rcu_expedited() invocation is
> > tiny sub-millisecond spurts of execution where the scheduler freely
> > migrates this apparently sleepy task. The overhead of frequent scheduler
> > invocation multiplies the execution time by a factor of 2-3X.
> >
> > For example, performance improves from 16 minutes to 7 minutes for a
> > firmware update procedure across 24 devices.
> >
> > Perhaps the rcu usage was intended to allow for not taking a sleeping
> > lock in the acpi_os_{read,write}_memory() path which ostensibly could be
> > called from an APEI NMI error interrupt?
>
> Not really.
>
> acpi_os_{read|write}_memory() end up being called from non-NMI
> interrupt context via acpi_hw_{read|write}(), respectively, and quite
> obviously ioremap() cannot be run from there, but in those cases the
> mappings in question are there in the list already in all cases and so
> the ioremap() isn't used then.
>
> RCU is there to protect these users from walking the list while it is
> being updated.
>
> > Neither rcu_read_lock() nor ioremap() are interrupt safe, so add a WARN_ONCE() to validate that rcu
> > was not serving as a mechanism to avoid direct calls to ioremap().
>
> But it would produce false-positives if the IRQ context was not NMI,
> wouldn't it?
>
> > Even the original implementation had a spin_lock_irqsave(), but that is not
> > NMI safe.
>
> Which is not a problem (see above).
>
> > APEI itself already has some concept of avoiding ioremap() from
> > interrupt context (see erst_exec_move_data()), if the new warning
> > triggers it means that APEI either needs more instrumentation like that
> > to pre-emptively fail, or more infrastructure to arrange for pre-mapping
> > the resources it needs in NMI context.
>
> Well, I'm not sure about that.

Right, this patch set is about 2-3 generations behind the architecture
of the fix we are discussing internally, you might mention that.

The fix we are looking at now is to pre-map operation regions in a
similar manner as the way APEI resources are pre-mapped. The
pre-mapping would arrange for synchronize_rcu_expedited() to be elided
on each dynamic mapping attempt. The other piece is to arrange for
operation-regions to be mapped at their full size at once rather than
a page at a time.