linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 4/4] rcu-tasks: Shorten per-grace-period sleep for RCU Tasks Trace

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: <20200911043709.GV29330@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date:   Thu, 10 Sep 2020 21:37:09 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     rcu@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 4/4] rcu-tasks: Shorten per-grace-period
 sleep for RCU Tasks Trace

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 08:18:01PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 1:20 PM <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
> >
> > The various RCU tasks flavors currently wait 100 milliseconds between each
> > grace period in order to prevent CPU-bound loops and to favor efficiency
> > over latency.  However, RCU Tasks Trace needs to have a grace-period
> > latency of roughly 25 milliseconds, which is completely infeasible given
> > the 100-millisecond per-grace-period sleep.  This commit therefore reduces
> > this sleep duration to 5 milliseconds (or one jiffy, whichever is longer)
> > in kernels built with CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU_READ_MB=y.
> 
> The commit log is either misleading or wrong?
> If I read the code correctly in CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU_READ_MB=y
> case the existing HZ/10 "paranoid sleep" is preserved.

Yes, for CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU_READ_MB=y, the previous 100-millisecond
"paranoid sleep" is preserved.  Preserving previous behavior is of course
especially important for rcupdate.rcu_task_ipi_delay, given that real-time
applications are degraded by IPIs.  And given that we are avoiding IPIs
in this case, speeding up the polling is not all that helpful.

> It's for the MB=n case it is reduced to HZ/200.

Yes, that is, to roughly 5 milliseconds for large HZ or to one jiffy
for HZ<200.  Here, we send IPIs much more aggressively, so polling
more frequently does help a lot.

> Also I don't understand why you're talking about milliseconds but
> all numbers are HZ based. HZ/10 gives different number of
> milliseconds depending on HZ.

As long as HZ is 10 or greater, HZ/10 jiffies is roughly 100 milliseconds.
In the unlikely event that HZ is less than 10, the code clamps to one
jiffy.  Since schedule_timeout_idle() sleep time is specified in jiffies,
it all works out.

							Thanx, Paul