linux-kernel - Re: RCU vs NOHZ

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: <20220929195239.GY4196@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 12:52:39 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: RCU vs NOHZ

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 09:01:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 09:42:04AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 06:23:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 08:46:18AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 08:20:44AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > There is a directly invoked RCU hook for any transition that enables or
> > > > > > > disables the tick, namely the ct_*_enter() and ct_*_exit() functions,
> > > > > > > that is, those functions formerly known as rcu_*_enter() and rcu_*_exit().
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Context tracking doesn't know about NOHZ, therefore RCU can't either.
> > > > > > Context tracking knows about IDLE, but not all IDLE is NOHZ-IDLE.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Specifically we have:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 	ct_{idle,irq,nmi,user,kernel}_enter()
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > And none of them are related to NOHZ in the slightest. So no, RCU does
> > > > > > not have a NOHZ callback.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'm still thikning you're conflating NOHZ_FULL (stopping the tick when
> > > > > > in userspace) and regular NOHZ (stopping the tick when idle).
> > > > 
> > > > Exactly how are ct_user_enter() and ct_user_exit() completely unrelated
> > > > to nohz_full CPUs?
> > > 
> > > That's the thing; I'm not talking about nohz_full. I'm talking about
> > > regular nohz. World of difference there.
> > 
> > And indeed, for !nohz_full CPUs, the tick continues throughout userspace
> > execution.  But you really did have ct_user_enter() and ct_user_exit()
> > on your list.
> > 
> > And for idle (as opposed to nohz_full userspace execution), there is still
> > ct_{idle,irq,nmi}_enter().  And RCU does pay attention to these.
> > 
> > So exactly what are you trying to tell me here?  ;-)
> 
> That RCU doens't have a nohz callback -- you were arguing it does
> through the ct_*_enter() things, I said none of them are related to
> nohz.

OK, once again, I will bite...

How are ct_idle_enter(), ct_irq_enter() from idle, and ct_nmi_enter()
again from idle unrelated to nohz?

Or, for that matter, rcu_needs_cpu()?

							Thanx, Paul