linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] tracing: use sched-RCU instead of SRCU for rcuidle tracepoints

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: <73192641.37901.1603722487627.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:28:07 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, acme <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] tracing: use sched-RCU instead of SRCU for
 rcuidle tracepoints

----- On Oct 26, 2020, at 4:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@...radead.org wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 05:13:59PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 03:53:52PM -0400, Michael Jeanson wrote:
>> > From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
>> > 
>> > Considering that tracer callbacks expect RCU to be watching (for
>> > instance, perf uses rcu_read_lock), we need rcuidle tracepoints to issue
>> > rcu_irq_{enter,exit}_irqson around calls to the callbacks. So there is
>> > no point in using SRCU anymore given that rcuidle tracepoints need to
>> > ensure RCU is watching. Therefore, simply use sched-RCU like normal
>> > tracepoints for rcuidle tracepoints.
>> 
>> High level question:
>> 
>> IIRC, doing this increases overhead for general tracing that does not use
>> perf, for 'rcuidle' tracepoints such as the preempt/irq enable/disable
>> tracepoints. I remember adding SRCU because of this reason.
>> 
>> Can the 'rcuidle' information not be pushed down further, such that perf does
>> it because it requires RCU to be watching, so that it does not effect, say,
>> trace events?
> 
> There's very few trace_.*_rcuidle() users left. We should eradicate them
> and remove the option. It's bugs to begin with.

I agree with Peter. Removing the trace_.*_rcuidle weirdness from the tracepoint
API and fixing all callers to ensure they trace from a context where RCU is
watching would simplify instrumentation of the Linux kernel, thus making it harder
for subtle bugs to hide and be unearthed only when tracing is enabled. This is
AFAIU the general approach Thomas Gleixner has been aiming for recently, and I
think it is a good thing.

So if we consider this our target, and that the current state of things is that
we need to have RCU watching around callback invocation, then removing the
dependency on SRCU seems like an overall simplification which does not regress
feature-wise nor speed-wise compared with what we have upstream today. The next
steps would then be to audit all rcuidle tracepoints and make sure the context
where they are placed has RCU watching already, so we can remove the tracepoint
rcuidle API. That would effectively remove the calls to rcu_irq_{enter,exit}_irqson
from the tracepoint code.

This is however beyond the scope of the proposed patch set.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com