| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <160396740917.397.14144812059422147901.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 10:30:09 -0000
From: "tip-bot2 for Jens Axboe" <tip-bot2@...utronix.de>
To: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Roman Gershman <romger@...zon.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [tip: core/entry] task_work: Use TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL if available
The following commit has been merged into the core/entry branch of tip:
Commit-ID: 114518eb6430b832d2f9f5a008043b913ccf0e24
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/114518eb6430b832d2f9f5a008043b913ccf0e24
Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
AuthorDate: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:32:30 -06:00
Committer: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CommitterDate: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 09:37:37 +01:00
task_work: Use TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL if available
If the arch supports TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL, then use that for TWA_SIGNAL as
it's more efficient than using the signal delivery method. This is
especially true on threaded applications, where ->sighand is shared across
threads, but it's also lighter weight on non-shared cases.
io_uring is a heavy consumer of TWA_SIGNAL based task_work. A test with
threads shows a nice improvement running an io_uring based echo server.
stock kernel:
0.01% <= 0.1 milliseconds
95.86% <= 0.2 milliseconds
98.27% <= 0.3 milliseconds
99.71% <= 0.4 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.5 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.6 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.7 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.8 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.9 milliseconds
100.00% <= 1.0 milliseconds
100.00% <= 1.1 milliseconds
100.00% <= 2 milliseconds
100.00% <= 3 milliseconds
100.00% <= 3 milliseconds
1378930.00 requests per second
~1600% CPU
1.38M requests/second, and all 16 CPUs are maxed out.
patched kernel:
0.01% <= 0.1 milliseconds
98.24% <= 0.2 milliseconds
99.47% <= 0.3 milliseconds
99.99% <= 0.4 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.5 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.6 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.7 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.8 milliseconds
100.00% <= 0.9 milliseconds
100.00% <= 1.2 milliseconds
1666111.38 requests per second
~1450% CPU
1.67M requests/second, and we're no longer just hammering on the sighand
lock. The original reporter states:
"For 5.7.15 my benchmark achieves 1.6M qps and system cpu is at ~80%.
for 5.7.16 or later it achieves only 1M qps and the system cpu is is
at ~100%"
with the only difference there being that TWA_SIGNAL is used
unconditionally in 5.7.16, since it's required to be able to handle the
inability to run task_work if the application is waiting in the kernel
already on an event that needs task_work run to be satisfied. Also see
commit 0ba9c9edcd15.
Reported-by: Roman Gershman <romger@...zon.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201026203230.386348-5-axboe@kernel.dk
---
kernel/task_work.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/task_work.c b/kernel/task_work.c
index 613b2d6..ae05889 100644
--- a/kernel/task_work.c
+++ b/kernel/task_work.c
@@ -5,6 +5,34 @@
static struct callback_head work_exited; /* all we need is ->next == NULL */
+/*
+ * TWA_SIGNAL signaling - use TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL, if available, as it's faster
+ * than TIF_SIGPENDING as there's no dependency on ->sighand. The latter is
+ * shared for threads, and can cause contention on sighand->lock. Even for
+ * the non-threaded case TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL is more efficient, as no locking
+ * or IRQ disabling is involved for notification (or running) purposes.
+ */
+static void task_work_notify_signal(struct task_struct *task)
+{
+#if defined(TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL)
+ set_notify_signal(task);
+#else
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ /*
+ * Only grab the sighand lock if we don't already have some
+ * task_work pending. This pairs with the smp_store_mb()
+ * in get_signal(), see comment there.
+ */
+ if (!(READ_ONCE(task->jobctl) & JOBCTL_TASK_WORK) &&
+ lock_task_sighand(task, &flags)) {
+ task->jobctl |= JOBCTL_TASK_WORK;
+ signal_wake_up(task, 0);
+ unlock_task_sighand(task, &flags);
+ }
+#endif
+}
+
/**
* task_work_add - ask the @task to execute @work->func()
* @task: the task which should run the callback
@@ -28,7 +56,6 @@ int
task_work_add(struct task_struct *task, struct callback_head *work, int notify)
{
struct callback_head *head;
- unsigned long flags;
do {
head = READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
@@ -42,17 +69,7 @@ task_work_add(struct task_struct *task, struct callback_head *work, int notify)
set_notify_resume(task);
break;
case TWA_SIGNAL:
- /*
- * Only grab the sighand lock if we don't already have some
- * task_work pending. This pairs with the smp_store_mb()
- * in get_signal(), see comment there.
- */
- if (!(READ_ONCE(task->jobctl) & JOBCTL_TASK_WORK) &&
- lock_task_sighand(task, &flags)) {
- task->jobctl |= JOBCTL_TASK_WORK;
- signal_wake_up(task, 0);
- unlock_task_sighand(task, &flags);
- }
+ task_work_notify_signal(task);
break;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists