linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local

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]

Date:   Wed, 27 Jan 2021 10:09:25 -0300
From:   Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        frederic@...nel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, abelits@...vell.com,
        bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, davem@...emloft.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        sfr@...b.auug.org.au, stephen@...workplumber.org,
        rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jinyuqi@...wei.com,
        zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping
 CPUs

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:36:30PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2021-01-27 12:19, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:57:16AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On 2020-06-25 23:34, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> > > > From: Alex Belits <abelits@...vell.com>
> > > > 
> > > > The current implementation of cpumask_local_spread() does not respect the
> > > > isolated CPUs, i.e., even if a CPU has been isolated for Real-Time task,
> > > > it will return it to the caller for pinning of its IRQ threads. Having
> > > > these unwanted IRQ threads on an isolated CPU adds up to a latency
> > > > overhead.
> > > > 
> > > > Restrict the CPUs that are returned for spreading IRQs only to the
> > > > available housekeeping CPUs.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Belits <abelits@...vell.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >    lib/cpumask.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> > > >    1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/lib/cpumask.c b/lib/cpumask.c
> > > > index fb22fb266f93..85da6ab4fbb5 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/cpumask.c
> > > > +++ b/lib/cpumask.c
> > > > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> > > >    #include <linux/export.h>
> > > >    #include <linux/memblock.h>
> > > >    #include <linux/numa.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h>
> > > >    /**
> > > >     * cpumask_next - get the next cpu in a cpumask
> > > > @@ -205,22 +206,27 @@ void __init free_bootmem_cpumask_var(cpumask_var_t mask)
> > > >     */
> > > >    unsigned int cpumask_local_spread(unsigned int i, int node)
> > > >    {
> > > > -	int cpu;
> > > > +	int cpu, hk_flags;
> > > > +	const struct cpumask *mask;
> > > > +	hk_flags = HK_FLAG_DOMAIN | HK_FLAG_MANAGED_IRQ;
> > > > +	mask = housekeeping_cpumask(hk_flags);
> > > 
> > > AFAICS, this generally resolves to something based on cpu_possible_mask
> > > rather than cpu_online_mask as before, so could now potentially return an
> > > offline CPU. Was that an intentional change?
> > 
> > Robin,
> > 
> > AFAICS online CPUs should be filtered.
> 
> Apologies if I'm being thick, but can you explain how? In the case of
> isolation being disabled or compiled out, housekeeping_cpumask() is
> literally just "return cpu_possible_mask;". If we then iterate over that
> with for_each_cpu() and just return the i'th possible CPU (e.g. in the
> NUMA_NO_NODE case), what guarantees that CPU is actually online?
> 
> Robin.

Nothing, but that was the situation before 1abdfe706a579a702799fce465bceb9fb01d407c
as well.

cpumask_local_spread() should probably be disabling CPU hotplug.

Thomas?

> 
> > > I was just looking at the current code since I had the rare presence of mind
> > > to check if something suitable already existed before I start open-coding
> > > "any online CPU, but local node preferred" logic for handling IRQ affinity
> > > in a driver - cpumask_local_spread() appears to be almost what I want (if a
> > > bit more heavyweight), if only it would actually guarantee an online CPU as
> > > the kerneldoc claims :(
> > > 
> > > Robin.
> > > 
> > > >    	/* Wrap: we always want a cpu. */
> > > > -	i %= num_online_cpus();
> > > > +	i %= cpumask_weight(mask);
> > > >    	if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> > > > -		for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_online_mask)
> > > > +		for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
> > > >    			if (i-- == 0)
> > > >    				return cpu;
> > > > +		}
> > > >    	} else {
> > > >    		/* NUMA first. */
> > > > -		for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node), cpu_online_mask)
> > > > +		for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node), mask) {
> > > >    			if (i-- == 0)
> > > >    				return cpu;
> > > > +		}
> > > > -		for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_online_mask) {
> > > > +		for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
> > > >    			/* Skip NUMA nodes, done above. */
> > > >    			if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node)))
> > > >    				continue;
> > > > 
> >