linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] softirq: avoid spurious stalls due to need

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]

Message-ID: <20230306043033.GO1301832@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date:   Sun, 5 Mar 2023 20:30:33 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
        jstultz@...gle.com, edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] softirq: avoid spurious stalls due to need_resched()

On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 12:00:24AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2023 at 02:42:11PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 05, 2023 at 09:43:23PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Indeed, as you well know, CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y in combination with the
> > rcutree.use_softirq kernel boot parameter in combination with either the
> > nohz_full or rcu_nocbs kernel boot parameter and then the callbacks are
> > invoked within separate kthreads so that the scheduler has full control.
> > In addition, this dispenses with all of the heuristics that are otherwise
> > necessary to avoid invoking too many callbacks in one shot.
> > 
> > Back in the day, I tried making this the default (with an eye towards
> > making it the sole callback-execution scheme), but this resulted in
> > some ugly performance regressions.  This was in part due to the extra
> > synchronization required to queue a callback and in part due to the
> > higher average cost of a wakeup compared to a raise_softirq().
> > 
> > So I changed to the current non-default arrangement.
> > 
> > And of course, you can do it halfway by booting kernel built with
> > CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=n with the rcutree.use_softirq kernel boot parameter.
> > But then the callback-invocation-limit heuristics are still used, but
> > this time to prevent callback invocation from preventing the CPU from
> > reporting quiescent states.  But if this was the only case, simpler
> > heuristics would suffice.
> > 
> > In short, it is not hard to make RCU avoid using softirq, but doing so
> > is not without side effects.  ;-)
> 
> Right but note that, threaded or not, callbacks invocation happen
> within a local_bh_disable() section, preventing other softirqs from running.
> 
> So this is still subject to the softirq per-CPU BKL.

True enough!  But it momentarily enables BH after invoking each callback,
so the other softirq vectors should be able to get a word in.

							Thanx, Paul