linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] Implement call_rcu

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220830105324.GA71266@lothringen>
Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:53:24 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rushikesh S Kadam <rushikesh.s.kadam@...el.com>,
        "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>,
        Neeraj upadhyay <neeraj.iitr10@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] Implement call_rcu_lazy() and miscellaneous
 fixes

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 01:42:02PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 04:36:40PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 3:46 PM Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 12:45:40PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On 8/29/2022 9:40 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> [ . .  . ]
> 
> > > > > 2) NOCB implies performance issues.
> > > >
> > > > Which kinds of? There is slightly worse boot times, but I'm guessing that's do
> > > > with the extra scheduling overhead of the extra threads which is usually not a
> > > > problem except that RCU is used in the critical path of boot up (on ChromeOS).
> > >
> > > I never measured it myself but executing callbacks on another CPUs, with
> > > context switches and locking can only involve significant performance issues if callbacks
> > > are frequent. So it's a tradeoff between power and performance.
> > 
> > In my testing of benchmarks on real systems with 8-16 CPUs, the
> > performance hit is down in the noise. It is possible though that maybe
> > one can write a non-realistic synthetic test to force the performance
> > issues, but I've not seen it in the real world. Maybe on
> > networking-heavy servers with lots of cores, you'll see it but their
> > batteries if any would be pretty big :-).
> 
> To Frederic's point, if you have enough servers, even a 1% decrease in
> power consumption is a very big deal.  ;-)

The world has enough servers, for that matters ;-)