linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu/nocb: Spare bypass locking upon normal enqueue

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: <Y0bT8jRig7b9PxTe@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:49:22 +0000
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu/nocb: Spare bypass locking upon normal enqueue

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 12:23:58PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 07:47:07PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 3:21 PM Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 02:00:40AM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 12:39:56AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > > When a callback is to be enqueued to the normal queue and not the bypass
> > > > > one, a flush to the bypass queue is always tried anyway. This attempt
> > > > > involves locking the bypass lock unconditionally. Although it is
> > > > > guaranteed not to be contended at this point, because only call_rcu()
> > > > > can lock the bypass lock without holding the nocb lock, it's still not
> > > > > free and the operation can easily be spared most of the time by just
> > > > > checking if the bypass list is empty. The check is safe as nobody can
> > > > > queue nor flush the bypass concurrently.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h | 6 ++++--
> > > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> > > > > index 094fd454b6c3..30c3d473ffd8 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> > > > > @@ -423,8 +423,10 @@ static bool rcu_nocb_try_bypass(struct rcu_data *rdp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
> > > > >             if (*was_alldone)
> > > > >                     trace_rcu_nocb_wake(rcu_state.name, rdp->cpu,
> > > > >                                         TPS("FirstQ"));
> > > > > -           WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_nocb_flush_bypass(rdp, NULL, j));
> > > > > -           WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_cblist_n_cbs(&rdp->nocb_bypass));
> > > > > +           if (rcu_cblist_n_cbs(&rdp->nocb_bypass)) {
> > > > > +                   WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_nocb_flush_bypass(rdp, NULL, j));
> > > > > +                   WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_cblist_n_cbs(&rdp->nocb_bypass));
> > > > > +           }
> > > > >             return false; // Caller must enqueue the callback.
> > > > >     }
> > > >
> > > > Instead of this, since as you mentioned that the bypass lock is not contended
> > > > in this path, isn't it unnecessary to even check or attempt to acquire the
> > > > lock in call_rcu() path? So how about something like the following, or would
> > > > this not work for some reason?
> > >
> > > You're right. But it's a bit error prone and it adds quite some code complication
> > > just for a gain on a rare event (bypass is supposed to be flushed on rare
> > > occasions by the caller).
> > 
> > But the "checking of whether to flush" which leads to "acquiring the
> > bypass lock first" , is not a rare event as you pointed out (can be
> > spared most of the time as you said). The alternative I proposed
> > removes the need for the frequent locking (which is another way of
> > implementing what you suggested).
> 
> It's not rare as a whole but this quick-check patch addresses the fast path.
> What you propose is to extend the API to also cover the other flushes in
> rcu_nocb_try_bypass() that are slower path.

You can keep the same API though.

But there is also the unlock path which needs to be conditional, so I agree
it does complicate the code a bit more.

> I think this makes the API more error prone (users may get it easily wrong)
> and complicated for tiny, if measurable, gains.

Ok fair point. So then your original patch is good with me then. And nice
observation indeed.

thanks!

 - Joel