linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH rcu 01/12] rcu: Decrease FQS scan wait time in case of callback overloading

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: <87c17e9a-565a-d717-3534-83a4c506b984@quicinc.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jun 2022 10:59:58 +0530
From:   Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, <rcu@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@...com>,
        <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu 01/12] rcu: Decrease FQS scan wait time in case of
 callback overloading



On 6/21/2022 3:50 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The force-quiesce-state loop function rcu_gp_fqs_loop() checks for
> callback overloading and does an immediate initial scan for idle CPUs
> if so.  However, subsequent rescans will be carried out at as leisurely a
> rate as they always are, as specified by the rcutree.jiffies_till_next_fqs
> module parameter.  It might be tempting to just continue immediately
> rescanning, but this turns the RCU grace-period kthread into a CPU hog.
> It might also be tempting to reduce the time between rescans to a single
> jiffy, but this can be problematic on larger systems.
> 
> This commit therefore divides the normal time between rescans by three,
> rounding up.  Thus a small system running at HZ=1000 that is suffering
> from callback overload will wait only one jiffy instead of the normal
> three between rescans.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> ---
>   kernel/rcu/tree.c | 5 +++++
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index c25ba442044a6..c19d5926886fb 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1993,6 +1993,11 @@ static noinline_for_stack void rcu_gp_fqs_loop(void)
>   			WRITE_ONCE(rcu_state.jiffies_kick_kthreads,
>   				   jiffies + (j ? 3 * j : 2));
>   		}
> +		if (rcu_state.cbovld) {
> +			j = (j + 2) / 3;
> +			if (j <= 0)
> +				j = 1;
> +		}

We update 'j' here, after setting rcu_state.jiffies_force_qs

     WRITE_ONCE(rcu_state.jiffies_force_qs, jiffies + j)

So, we return from swait_event_idle_timeout_exclusive after 1/3 time 
duration.

     swait_event_idle_timeout_exclusive(rcu_state.gp_wq,
				 rcu_gp_fqs_check_wake(&gf), j);

This can result in !timer_after check to return false and we will
enter the 'else' (stray signal block) code?

This might not matter for first 2 fqs loop iterations, where 
RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD is set in 'gf', but subsequent iterations won't benefit
from this patch?


if (!time_after(rcu_state.jiffies_force_qs, jiffies) ||
	(gf & (RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS | RCU_GP_FLAG_OVLD))) {
			...
} else {
	/* Deal with stray signal. */
}


So, do we need to move this calculation above the 'if' block which sets 
rcu_state.jiffies_force_qs?
		if (!ret) {

			WRITE_ONCE(rcu_state.jiffies_force_qs, jiffies +
						j);...
		}

Thanks
Neeraj

>   		trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rcu_state.gp_seq,
>   				       TPS("fqswait"));
>   		WRITE_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_state, RCU_GP_WAIT_FQS);