linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcuwait: do not enter RCU protection unless a wakeup is needed

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: <YW/61zpycsD8/z4g@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:17:43 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcuwait: do not enter RCU protection unless a wakeup is
 needed

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 07:06:38AM -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> In some cases, rcuwait_wake_up can be called even if the actual likelihood
> of a wakeup is very low.  If CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU is active, the resulting
> rcu_read_lock/rcu_read_unlock pair can be relatively expensive, and in
> fact it is unnecessary when there is no w->task to keep alive: the
> memory barrier before the read is what matters in order to avoid missed
> wakeups.
> 
> Therefore, do an early check of w->task right after the barrier, and skip
> rcu_read_lock/rcu_read_unlock unless there is someone waiting for a wakeup.
> 
> Running kvm-unit-test/vmexit.flat with APICv disabled, most interrupt
> injection tests (tscdeadline*, self_ipi*, x2apic_self_ipi*) improve
> by around 600 cpu cycles.

*how* ?!?

AFAICT, rcu_read_lock() for PREEMPT_RCU is:

  WRITE_ONCE(current->rcu_read_lock_nesting, READ_ONCE(current->rcu_read_lock_nesting) + 1);
  barrier();

Paul?