linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hrtimer: Update softirq_expires_next correctly after __hrtimer_get_next

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: <CANP3RGcX11RS=rwbem7+5it+Zu072sd15pHHFHjCFkXk11qrgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:12:34 -0700
From:   Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mikael.beckius@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hrtimer: Update softirq_expires_next correctly after __hrtimer_get_next_event()

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:47 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 14 2021 at 11:49, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 2:14 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> To give context, the commit is now 46eb1701c046 ("hrtimer: Update
> >> softirq_expires_next correctly after __hrtimer_get_next_event()") and is
> >> attached below.
> >>
> >> The f_ncm.c driver is doing a lot of calls to hrtimer_start() with mode
> >> HRTIMER_MODE_REL_SOFT for I think every packet it gets.  If that should
> >> not be happening, we can easily fix it but I guess no one has actually
> >> had fast USB devices that noticed this until now :)
> >
> > AIUI the purpose of this timer is to support packet aggregation. USB
> > transfers are relatively expensive/high latency. 6 Gbps is 500k
> > 1500-byte packets per second, or one every 2us. So f_ncm buffers as
> > many packets as will fit into 16k (usually, 10 1500-byte packets), and
> > only initiates a USB transfer when those packets have arrived. That
> > ends up doing only one transfer every 20us. It sets a 300us timer to
> > ensure that if the 10 packets haven't arrived, it still sends out
> > whatever it has when the timer fires. The timer is set/updated on
> > every packet buffered by ncm.
> >
> > Is this somehow much more expensive in 5.10.24 than it was before?
> > Even if this driver is somehow "holding it wrong", might there not be
> > other workloads that have a similar problem? What about regressions on
> > those workloads?
>
> Let's put the question of whether this hrtimer usage is sensible or not
> aside for now.
>
> I stared at the change for a while and did some experiments to recreate
> the problem, but that didn't get me anywhere.
>
> Could you please do the following?
>
> Enable tracing and enable the following tracepoints:
>
>     timers/hrtimer_cancel
>     timers/hrtimer_start
>     timers/hrtimer_expire_entry
>     irq/softirq_raise
>     irq/softirq_enter
>     irq/softirq_exit
>
> and function tracing filtered on ncm_wrap_ntb() and
> package_for_tx() only (to reduce the noise).
>
> Run the test on a kernels with and without that commit and collect trace
> data for both.
>
> That should give me a pretty clear picture what's going on.

Lorenzo is trying to get the traces you asked for, or rather he’s
trying to get confirmation he can post them.

Our initial observation of these results seems to suggest that
updating the timer (hrtimer_start, which seems to also call
hrtimer_cancel) takes twice as long as it used to.

My gut feeling is that softirq_activated is usually false, and the old
code in such a case calls just __hrtimer_get_next_event(,
HRTIMER_ACTIVE_ALL).  While the new code will first call
__hrtimer_get_next_event(, HRTIMER_ACTIVE_SOFT) and then
__hrtimer_get_next_event(, HRTIMER_ACTIVE_HARD)

Perhaps __hrtimer_get_next_event() should return both soft and hard
event times in one function call?
Or perhaps hrtimer_start should not call hrtimer_cancel?

We've also been looking at the f_ncm driver itself, and trying to
reduce the number of hrtimer_cancel/start calls.
It's pretty easy to reduce this by a factor of 10x (we’re not yet 100%
certain this is race free), which does drastically improve
performance.
However, it still only takes the regression from 60% to 20%.

- Maciej