linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next v4] blk-mq: fix tag

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <579f4be1-889a-3740-fa85-ca652ed3b2ae@kernel.dk>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 09:38:09 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        QiuLaibin <qiulaibin@...wei.com>, ming.lei@...hat.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, hare@...e.de,
        johannes.thumshirn@....com, bvanassche@....org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v4] blk-mq: fix tag_get wait task can't be awakened

On 1/12/22 9:29 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 08:37:34AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 1/12/22 7:38 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 12:51:13PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>>>> On 12/01/2022 12:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>>>>> +		if (test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_HCTX_ACTIVE, &q->queue_flags) ||
>>>>>>>> +		    test_and_set_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_HCTX_ACTIVE, &q->queue_flags)) {
>>>>>>> Whoever wrote this code did too much defensive programming, because the first
>>>>>>> conditional doesn't make much sense here. Am I right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think because this judgement is in the general IO process, there are also
>>>>>> some performance considerations here.
>>>>> I didn't buy this. Is there any better argument why you need redundant
>>>>> test_bit() call?
>>>>
>>>> I think that the idea is that test_bit() is fast and test_and_set_bit() is
>>>> slow; as such, if we generally expect the bit to be set, then there is no
>>>> need to do the slower test_and_set_bit() always.
>>>
>>> It doesn't sound thought through solution, the bit can be flipped in
>>> between, so what is this all about? Maybe missing proper serialization
>>> somewhere else?
>>
>> You need to work on your communication a bit - if there's a piece of
>> code you don't understand, maybe try being a bit less aggressive about
>> it? Otherwise people tend to just ignore you rather than explain it.
> 
> Sure. Thanks for below explanations, btw.
> 
>> test_bit() is a lot faster than a test_and_set_bit(), and there's no
>> need to run the latter if the former returns true. This is a pretty
>> common optimization, particularly if the majority of the calls end up
>> having the bit set already.
> 
> I don't see how it may give optimization here generally speaking.
> If we know that bit is _often_ is set, than of course it sounds
> like opportunistic win. Otherwise, it may have the opposite effect.
> 
> I.o.w. without knowing the statistics of the bit being set/clear it's
> hard to say if it's optimization or waste of the (CPU) resources.

It doesn't really matter that much, the test_bit() is essentially free
compared to the test and set. Which means that in practice there's
little downside, and the upsides on when the bit is set is pretty big.

This technique has proven very useful in other spots, only downside is
really that there's no general helper to do this. That would also help
the readability.

-- 
Jens Axboe