linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] rcu: Add a minimum time for marking boot as completed

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: <ZArwZjcEYXAYwmqi@pc636>
Date:   Fri, 10 Mar 2023 09:55:02 +0100
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Qiuxu Zhuo <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rcu: Add a minimum time for marking boot as completed

On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 10:10:56PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 01:57:42PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> [..]
> > > > > > > See this commit:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 3705b88db0d7cc ("rcu: Add a module parameter to force use of
> > > > > > > expedited RCU primitives")
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Antti provided this commit precisely in order to allow Android
> > > > > > > devices to expedite the boot process and to shut off the
> > > > > > > expediting at a time of Android userspace's choosing.  So Android
> > > > > > > has been making this work for about ten years, which strikes me
> > > > > > > as an adequate proof of concept.  ;-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks for the pointer. That's true. Looking at Android sources, I
> > > > > > find that Android Mediatek devices at least are setting
> > > > > > rcu_expedited to 1 at late stage of their userspace boot (which is
> > > > > > weird, it should be set to 1 as early as possible), and
> > > > > > interestingly I cannot find them resetting it back to 0!.  Maybe
> > > > > > they set rcu_normal to 1? But I cannot find that either. Vlad? :P
> > > > > 
> > > > > Interesting.  Though this is consistent with Antti's commit log,
> > > > > where he talks about expediting grace periods but not unexpediting
> > > > > them.
> > > > > 
> > > > Do you think we need to unexpedite it? :))))
> > > 
> > > Android runs on smallish systems, so quite possibly not!
> > > 
> > We keep it enabled and never unexpedite it. The reason is a performance.  I
> > have done some app-launch time analysis with enabling and disabling of it.
> > 
> > An expedited case is much better when it comes to app launch time. It
> > requires ~25% less time to run an app comparing with unexpedited variant.
> > So we have a big gain here.
> 
> Wow, that's huge. I wonder if you can dig deeper and find out why that is so
> as the callbacks may need to be synchronize_rcu_expedited() then, as it could
> be slowing down other usecases! I find it hard to believe, real-time
> workloads will run better without those callbacks being always-expedited if
> it actually gives back 25% in performance!
> 
I can dig further, but on a high level i think there are some spots
which show better performance if expedited is set. I mean synchronize_rcu()
becomes as "less blocking a context" from a time point of view.

The problem of a regular synchronize_rcu() is - it can trigger a big latency
delays for a caller. For example for nocb case we do not know where in a list
our callback is located and when it is invoked to unblock a caller.

I have already mentioned somewhere. Probably it makes sense to directly wake-up
callers from the GP kthread instead and not via nocb-kthread that invokes our callbacks
one by one.

--
Uladzislau Rezki