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]

Message-ID: <3e9ce666-c9cd-391b-52b6-3471fe2be2e6@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jan 2021 11:57:16 +0000
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        frederic@...nel.org, mtosatti@...hat.com, 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

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?

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;
>