linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] rcu/tree: Improve comments in rcu_report_qs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <PH0PR11MB5880E2B1C4A0A4DFA46C3B7FDADB9@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Feb 2023 01:14:00 +0000
From:   "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Frederic Weisbecker" <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        "Lai Jiangshan" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        "rcu@...r.kernel.org" <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] rcu/tree: Improve comments in rcu_report_qs_rdp()

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 12:19 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 10:09 PM Zhang, Qiang1 <qiang1.zhang@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Recent discussion triggered due to a patch linked below, from Qiang,
> > >shed light on the need to accelerate from QS reporting paths.
> > >
> > >Update the comments to capture this piece of knowledge.
> > >
> > >Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230118073014.2020743-1-qiang1.zhang@intel.com/
> > >Cc: Qiang Zhang <Qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
> > >Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> > >Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> > >
> > >---
> > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > >diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > >index 93eb03f8ed99..713eb6ca6902 100644
> > >--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > >+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > >@@ -1983,7 +1983,12 @@ rcu_report_qs_rdp(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> > >       } else {
> > >               /*
> > >                * This GP can't end until cpu checks in, so all of our
> > >-               * callbacks can be processed during the next GP.
> > >+               * callbacks can be processed during the next GP. Do
> > >+               * the acceleration from here otherwise there may be extra
> > >+               * grace period delays, as any accelerations from rcu_core()
> >
> >
> > Does the extra grace period delays means that if not accelerate callback,
> > the grace period will take more time to end ? or refers to a delay in the
> > start time of a new grace period?
>
> Yes, so IMO it is like this if we don't accelerate:
> 1. Start GP 1
> 2. CPU1 queues callback C1 (not accelerated yet)
> 3. CPU1 reports QS for GP1 (not accelerating anything).
> 4. GP1 ends
> 5. CPU1's note_gp_changes() is called, accelerate happens, now the CB
> will execute after GP3 (or alternately, rcu_core() on CPU1 does
> accelerate).
> 6. GP2 ends.
> 7. GP3 starts.
> 8. GP3 ends.
> 9. CB is invoked
>
> Instead, what we will get the following thanks to the acceleration here is:
> 1. Start GP 1
> 2. CPU1 queues callback C1 (not accelerated yet)
> 3. CPU1 reports QS for GP1 and acceleration happens as done by the
> code this patch adds comments for.
> 4. GP1 ends
> 5. CPU1's note_gp_changes() is called
> 6. GP2 ends.
> 7. CB is invoked
>
>Sorry I missed some steps, here is the update:
>1. Start GP 1
>2. CPU1 queues callback C1 (not accelerated yet)
>3. CPU1 reports QS for GP1 (not accelerating anything).
>4. GP1 ends
>5. GP2 starts for some other reason from some other CPU.
>6. CPU1's note_gp_changes() is called, acceleration happens, now the CB
>will execute after GP3.
>7. GP2 ends.
>8. GP3 starts.
>9. GP3 ends.
>10. CB is invoked
>
>Instead, what we will get the following thanks to the acceleration here is:
>1. Start GP 1
>2. CPU1 queues callback C1 (not accelerated yet)
>3. CPU1 reports QS for GP1 and acceleration happens as done by the
>code this patch adds comments for.
>4. GP1 ends
>5. GP2 starts
>6. GP2 ends.
>7. CB is invoked
>
>Does that make sense or is there a subtlety I missed?



Thanks for detailed description, that is to say, the grace period delays means that
if there is no acceleration,  the invocation of callback may be delayed by one or
more grace periods.

Can you re-describe the meaning of  "grace period delays "in the comments?

Thanks
Zqiang



>
>Thanks,
>
> - Joel