[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y20ohNc3xGtCd0Bj@agluck-desk3.sc.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 08:36:20 -0800
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
hpa@...or.com, luto@...nel.org, corbet@....net,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, bagasdotme@...il.com,
kernel-dev@...lia.com, kernel@...ccoli.net,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Joshua Ashton <joshua@...ggi.es>,
Melissa Wen <mwen@...lia.com>,
Paul Gofman <pgofman@...eweavers.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
Pierre-Loup Griffais <pgriffais@...vesoftware.com>,
Zebediah Figura <zfigura@...eweavers.com>,
Andre Almeida <andrealmeid@...lia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] x86/split_lock: Add sysctl to control the misery mode
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 05:02:54PM -0300, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> Commit b041b525dab9 ("x86/split_lock: Make life miserable for split lockers")
> changed the way the split lock detector works when in "warn" mode;
> basically, not only it shows the warn message, but also intentionally
> introduces a slowdown (through sleeping plus serialization mechanism)
> on such task. Based on discussions in [0], seems the warning alone
> wasn't enough motivation for userspace developers to fix their
> applications.
>
> Happens that originally the proposal in [0] was to add a new mode
> which would warns + slowdown the "split locking" task, keeping the
> old warn mode untouched. In the end, that idea was discarded and
> the regular/default "warn" mode now slowdowns the applications. This
> is quite aggressive with regards proprietary/legacy programs that
> basically are unable to properly run in kernel with this change.
> While it is understandable that a malicious application could DoS
> by split locking, it seems unacceptable to regress old/proprietary
> userspace programs through a default configuration that previously
> worked. An example of such breakage was reported in [1].
>
> So let's add a sysctl to allow controlling the "misery mode" behavior,
> as per Thomas suggestion on [2]. This way, users running legacy and/or
> proprietary software are allowed to still execute them with a decent
> performance while still observe the warning messages on kernel log.
Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists