linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] pstore: Revert pmsg

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: <CANDhNCp3OZv8KvBMLAAYj-qN+36AdVs7Ow8kPBP6h5KGxw9KGw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Mar 2023 10:27:34 -0800
From:   John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>,
        Midas Chien <midaschieh@...gle.com>,
        Chunhui Li (李春辉) 
        <chunhui.li@...iatek.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
        "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pstore: Revert pmsg_lock back to a normal mutex

On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 8:36 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat,  4 Mar 2023 03:10:29 +0000
> John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > This reverts commit 76d62f24db07f22ccf9bc18ca793c27d4ebef721.
> >
> > So while priority inversion on the pmsg_lock is an occasional
> > problem that an rt_mutex would help with, in uses where logging
> > is writing to pmsg heavily from multiple threads, the pmsg_lock
> > can be heavily contended.
> >
> > Normal mutexes can do adaptive spinning, which keeps the
> > contention overhead fairly low maybe adding on the order of 10s
> > of us delay waiting, but the slowpath w/ rt_mutexes makes the
> > blocked tasks sleep & wake. This makes matters worse when there
> > is heavy contentention, as it just allows additional threads to
> > run and line up to try to take the lock.
>
> That is incorrect. rt_mutexes have pretty much the same adaptive spinning
> as normal mutexes. So that is *not* the reason for the difference in
> performance, and should not be stated so in this change log.

Good point. Apologies, I was trying to describe the *behavior* being
seen in the traces by switching between mutex and rt_mtuex, but I do
see how it reads as a description of the capabilities of the
primitive.

thanks
-john