linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 39/41] kernel/fork: throttle call_rcu() calls in vm_area

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]

Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:52:14 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc:     paulmck@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        michel@...pinasse.org, jglisse@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, dave@...olabs.net,
        willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@...ibm.com, luto@...nel.org,
        songliubraving@...com, peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com,
        dhowells@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        kent.overstreet@...ux.dev, punit.agrawal@...edance.com,
        lstoakes@...il.com, peterjung1337@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
        axelrasmussen@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
        jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, tatashin@...gle.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com, gurua@...gle.com,
        arjunroy@...gle.com, soheil@...gle.com, hughlynch@...gle.com,
        leewalsh@...gle.com, posk@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 39/41] kernel/fork: throttle call_rcu() calls in
 vm_area_free

On Wed 18-01-23 11:01:08, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:34 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
[...]
> > There are a couple of possibilities here.
> >
> > First, if I am remembering correctly, the time between the call_rcu()
> > and invocation of the corresponding callback was taking multiple seconds,
> > but that was because the kernel was built with CONFIG_LAZY_RCU=y in
> > order to save power by batching RCU work over multiple call_rcu()
> > invocations.  If this is causing a problem for a given call site, the
> > shiny new call_rcu_hurry() can be used instead.  Doing this gets back
> > to the old-school non-laziness, but can of course consume more power.
> 
> That would not be the case because CONFIG_LAZY_RCU was not an option
> at the time I was profiling this issue.
> Laxy RCU would be a great option to replace this patch but
> unfortunately it's not the default behavior, so I would still have to
> implement this batching in case lazy RCU is not enabled.
> 
> >
> > Second, there is a much shorter one-jiffy delay between the call_rcu()
> > and the invocation of the corresponding callback in kernels built with
> > either CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y (but only on CPUs mentioned in the nohz_full
> > or rcu_nocbs kernel boot parameters) or CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y (but only
> > on CPUs mentioned in the rcu_nocbs kernel boot parameters).  The purpose
> > of this delay is to avoid lock contention, and so this delay is incurred
> > only on CPUs that are queuing callbacks at a rate exceeding 16K/second.
> > This is reduced to a per-jiffy limit, so on a HZ=1000 system, a CPU
> > invoking call_rcu() at least 16 times within a given jiffy will incur
> > the added delay.  The reason for this delay is the use of a separate
> > ->nocb_bypass list.  As Suren says, this bypass list is used to reduce
> > lock contention on the main ->cblist.  This is not needed in old-school
> > kernels built without either CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y or CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y
> > (including most datacenter kernels) because in that case the callbacks
> > enqueued by call_rcu() are touched only by the corresponding CPU, so
> > that there is no need for locks.
> 
> I believe this is the reason in my profiled case.
> 
> >
> > Third, if you are instead seeing multiple milliseconds of CPU consumed by
> > call_rcu() in the common case (for example, without the aid of interrupts,
> > NMIs, or SMIs), please do let me know.  That sounds to me like a bug.
> 
> I don't think I've seen such a case.
> Thanks for clarifications, Paul!

Thanks for the explanation Paul. I have to say this has caught me as a
surprise. There are just not enough details about the benchmark to
understand what is going on but I find it rather surprising that
call_rcu can induce a higher overhead than the actual kmem_cache_free
which is the callback. My naive understanding has been that call_rcu is
really fast way to defer the execution to the RCU safe context to do the
final cleanup.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs