linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] KVM: vCPU kick tax cut for running vCPU

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: <CANRm+CzuWnO8FZPTvvOtpxqc5h786o7THyebOFpVAp3BF1xQiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:49:14 +0800
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] KVM: vCPU kick tax cut for running vCPU

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 01:34, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 19/10/21 10:12, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > > -   if (kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu))
> > > -           return;
> > > +   me = get_cpu();
> > > +
> > > +   if (rcuwait_active(kvm_arch_vcpu_get_wait(vcpu)) && kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu))
> > > +           goto out;
> >
> > This is racy.  You are basically doing the same check that rcuwait_wake_up
> > does, but without the memory barrier before.
>
> I was worried that was the case[*], but I didn't have the two hours it would have
> taken me to verify there was indeed a problem :-)
>
> The intent of the extra check was to avoid the locked instruction that comes with
> disabling preemption via rcu_read_lock().  But thinking more, the extra op should
> be little more than a basic arithmetic operation in the grand scheme on modern x86
> since the cache line is going to be locked and written no matter what, either
> immediately before or immediately after.

I observe the main overhead of rcuwait_wake_up() is from rcu
operations, especially rcu_read_lock/unlock().

>
> So with Paolo's other comment, maybe just this?  And if this doesn't provide the
> desired performance boost, changes to the rcuwait behavior should go in separate
> patch.

Ok.

    Wanpeng