linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] rcutorture: Create nocb tasks only for CONFIG_RCU_NOCB

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: <PH0PR11MB58801CC64A8D2B8AEA37377EDAD79@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2023 01:20:16 +0000
From:   "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
CC:     "paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        "frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
        "quic_neeraju@...cinc.com" <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        "rcu@...r.kernel.org" <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] rcutorture: Create nocb tasks only for
 CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y kernels


>
>
> > On Feb 2, 2023, at 1:57 AM, Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > When setting nocbs_nthreads to start rcutorture test with a non-zero value,
> > the nocb tasks will be created and invoke rcu_nocb_cpu_offload/deoffload()
> > to toggle CPU's callback-offload state, but for CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=n
> > kernel, the rcu_nocb_cpu_offload/deoffload() is a no-op and this is also
> > meaningless for torture_type is non-rcu.
> >
> > This commit therefore add member can_nocbs_toggle to rcu_torture_ops
> > structure to avoid unnecessary nocb tasks creation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 10 ++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> >Sorry if I am missing something but what is the point of adding more lines of code and complexity to handle this? Does it improve the test coverage or reduce overhead?
> >
> >This is test code. I see no problem with cost of an extra unused task with positive trade off of keeping the code simple…
>
> For nocbs_nthreads is non-zero and CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=n kernels,
> the rcu_nocb_cpu_offload/deoffload() is a no-op,  we create nocbs_nthreads
> kthreads and perform nocb toggle tests periodically, which is meaningless and
> will take extra cpu time.
>
>Ah, ok. I see what you did now, could you add these details to the
>changelog. One comment below:
>
>[...]
> > @@ -569,6 +570,7 @@ static struct rcu_torture_ops rcu_ops = {
> >    .stall_dur        = rcu_jiffies_till_stall_check,
> >    .irq_capable        = 1,
> >    .can_boost        = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_BOOST),
> > +    .can_nocbs_toggle    = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU),
> >    .extendables        = RCUTORTURE_MAX_EXTEND,
> >    .name            = "rcu"
> > };
> > @@ -2356,7 +2358,7 @@ rcu_torture_print_module_parms(struct rcu_torture_ops *cur_ops, const char *tag)
> >         "n_barrier_cbs=%d "
> >         "onoff_interval=%d onoff_holdoff=%d "
> >         "read_exit_delay=%d read_exit_burst=%d "
> > -         "nocbs_nthreads=%d nocbs_toggle=%d "
> > +         "nocbs_nthreads=%d/%d nocbs_toggle=%d "
> >         "test_nmis=%d\n",
> >         torture_type, tag, nrealreaders, nfakewriters,
> >         stat_interval, verbose, test_no_idle_hz, shuffle_interval,
> > @@ -2368,7 +2370,7 @@ rcu_torture_print_module_parms(struct rcu_torture_ops *cur_ops, const char *tag)
> >         n_barrier_cbs,
> >         onoff_interval, onoff_holdoff,
> >         read_exit_delay, read_exit_burst,
> > -         nocbs_nthreads, nocbs_toggle,
> > +         nocbs_nthreads, cur_ops->can_nocbs_toggle, nocbs_toggle,
> >         test_nmis);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -3708,6 +3710,10 @@ rcu_torture_init(void)
> >        pr_alert("rcu-torture: ->fqs NULL and non-zero fqs_duration, fqs disabled.\n");
> >        fqs_duration = 0;
> >    }
> > +    if (!cur_ops->can_nocbs_toggle && nocbs_nthreads != 0) {
> > +        pr_alert("rcu-torture: ->can_nocbs_toggle false and non-zero nocbs_nthreads, nocbs_toggle disabled.\n");
> > +        nocbs_nthreads = 0;
> > +    }

>Instead of adding a hook, why not check for CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU here?
>
>so like:
> if (cur_ops != &rcu_ops || !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU))
>   nocbs_nthreads = 0;

Concise approach, I will resend.

Thanks
Zqiang

>
>Or will that not work for some reason? Just 2 line change and no ugly hooks =)
>
>- Joel