linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] use x86 cpu park to speedup smp

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: <87eejqu5q5.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 22:20:02 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "shenkai \(D\)" <shenkai8@...wei.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        hewenliang4@...wei.com, hushiyuan@...wei.com,
        luolongjun@...wei.com, hejingxian@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use x86 cpu park to speedup smp_init in kexec situation

On Tue, Dec 15 2020 at 08:31, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 6:46 AM shenkai (D) <shenkai8@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: shenkai <shenkai8@...wei.com>
>> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 01:58:06 +0000
>> Subject: [PATCH] use x86 cpu park to speedup smp_init in kexec situation
>>
>> In kexec reboot on x86 machine, APs will be halted and then waked up
>> by the apic INIT and SIPI interrupt. Here we can let APs spin instead
>> of being halted and boot APs by writing to specific address. In this way
>> we can accelerate smp_init procedure for we don't need to pull APs up
>> from a deep C-state.
>>
>> This is meaningful in many situations where users are sensitive to reboot
>> time cost.
>
> I like the concept.

No. This is the wrong thing to do. We are not optimizing for _one_
special case.

We can optimize it for all operations where all the non boot CPUs have
to brought up, be it cold boot, hibernation resume or kexec.

Aside of that this is not a magic X86 special problem. Pretty much all
architectures have the same issue and it can be solved very simple,
which has been discussed before and I outlined the solution years ago,
but nobody sat down and actually made it work.

Since the rewrite of the CPU hotplug infrastructure to a state machine
it's pretty obvious that the bringup of APs can changed from the fully
serialized:

     for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
     	if (!cpu_online(cpu))
           cpu_up(cpu, CPUHP_ONLINE);
     }

to

     for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
     	if (!cpu_online(cpu))
           cpu_up(cpu, CPUHP_KICK_CPU);
     }

     for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
     	if (!cpu_active(cpu))
           cpu_up(cpu, CPUHP_ONLINE);
     }

The CPUHP_KICK_CPU state does not exist today, but it's just the logical
consequence of the state machine. It's basically splitting __cpu_up()
into:

__cpu_kick()
{
    prepare();
    arch_kick_remote_cpu();     -> Send IPI/NMI, Firmware call .....
}

__cpu_wait_online()
{
    wait_until_cpu_online();
    do_further_stuff();
}

There is some more to it than just blindly splitting it up at the
architecture level.

All __cpu_up() implementations across arch/ have a lot of needlessly
duplicated and pointlessly differently implemented code which can move
completely into the core.

So actually we want to split this further up:

   CPUHP_PREPARE_CPU_UP:	Generic preparation step where all
                                the magic cruft which is duplicated
                                across architectures goes to

   CPUHP_KICK_CPU:		Architecture specific prepare and kick

   CPUHP_WAIT_ONLINE:           Generic wait function for CPU coming
                                online: wait_for_completion_timeout()
                                which releases the upcoming CPU and
                                invokes an optional arch_sync_cpu_up()
                                function which finalizes the bringup.
and on the AP side:

   CPU comes up, does all the low level setup, sets online, calls
   complete() and the spinwaits for release.

Once the control CPU comes out of the completion it releases the
spinwait.

That works for all bringup situations and not only for kexec and the
simple trick is that by the time the last CPU has been kicked in the
first step, the first kicked CPU is already spinwaiting for release.

By the time the first kicked CPU has completed the process, i.e. reached
the active state, then the next CPU is spinwaiting and so on.

If you look at the provided time saving:

   Mainline:		210ms
   Patched:		 80ms
-----------------------------
   Delta                130ms

i.e. it takes ~ 1.8ms to kick and wait for the AP to come up and ~ 1.1ms
per CPU for the whole bringup. It does not completly add up, but it has
a clear benefit for everything.

Also the changelog says that the delay is related to CPUs in deep
C-states. If CPUs are brought down for kexec then it's trivial enough to
limit the C-states or just not use mwait() at all.

It would be interesting to see the numbers just with play_dead() using
hlt() or mwait(eax=0, 0) for the kexec case and no other change at all.

Thanks,

        tglx