linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] smp: add a best_effort version of smp_call_function

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: <YH7XlxfvrdM1+oCe@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:31:03 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Luigi Rizzo <lrizzo@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, axboe@...nel.dk,
        paulmck@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] smp: add a best_effort version of
 smp_call_function_many()

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:41:08PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 11:14 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> > We mostly try and avoid using this stuff wherever possible. Only when
> > no other choice is left do we send IPIs.
> >
> > NOHZ_FULL already relies on this and gets massively unhappy when a new
> > user comes and starts to spray IPIs.
> 
> I am curious, why is that -- is it because the new user is stealing
> the shared csd's in cfd_data (see below), or some other reason ?

The premise of NOHZ_FULL is that it will not be interrupted. There are
users who are working on a mode where any interruption will cause a
(fatal) signal.

> > So no; mostly we send an IPI because we _HAVE_ to, not because giggles.
> >
> > That said; there's still some places left where we can avoid sending
> > IPIs, but in all those cases correctness mandates we actually handle
> > things and not randomly not do anything.
> 
> My case too requires that the request is eventually handled, but with
> this non-blocking IPI the caller has a better option than blocking:
> it can either retry the multicast IPI at a later time if conditions allow,
> or it can post a dedicated CSD (with the advantage that being my
> requests idempotent, if the CSD is locked there is no need to retry
> because it means the handler has not started yet).
> 
> In fact, if we had the option to use dedicated CSDs for multicast IPI,
> we wouldn't even need to retry because we'd know that the posted CSD
> is for our call back and not someone else's.

What are you doing that CSD contention is such a problem?