[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+9aoFjrYkpFSvuE@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 11:44:48 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
Cc: LKLM <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Anil Altinay <aaltinay@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] apparmor: global buffers spin lock may get contended
On 2023-02-16 16:08:10 [-0800], John Johansen wrote:
> --- a/security/apparmor/lsm.c
> +++ b/security/apparmor/lsm.c
> @@ -49,12 +49,19 @@ union aa_buffer {
> char buffer[1];
> };
> +struct aa_local_cache {
> + unsigned int contention;
> + unsigned int hold;
> + struct list_head head;
> +};
if you stick a local_lock_t into that struct, then you could replace
cache = get_cpu_ptr(&aa_local_buffers);
with
local_lock(&aa_local_buffers.lock);
cache = this_cpu_ptr(&aa_local_buffers);
You would get the preempt_disable() based locking for the per-CPU
variable (as with get_cpu_ptr()) and additionally some lockdep
validation which would warn if it is used outside of task context (IRQ).
I didn't parse completely the hold/contention logic but it seems to work
;)
You check "cache->count >= 2" twice but I don't see an inc/ dec of it
nor is it part of aa_local_cache.
I can't parse how many items can end up on the local list if the global
list is locked. My guess would be more than 2 due the ->hold parameter.
Do you have any numbers on the machine and performance it improved? It
sure will be a good selling point.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists