linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/1] Reduce synchronize

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: <PH0PR11MB5880E8E099868473028944D6DA889@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2023 00:14:07 +0000
From:   "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
CC:     "Zhuo, Qiuxu" <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        "quic_neeraju@...cinc.com" <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Oleksiy Avramchenko" <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] Reduce synchronize_rcu() waiting time


> > > From: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 6:28 PM [...]
> > > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Reduce synchronize_rcu() waiting time
> > > 
> > > A call to a synchronize_rcu() can be expensive from time point of view.
> > > Different workloads can be affected by this especially the ones 
> > > which use this API in its time critical sections.
> > > 
> > 
> > This is interesting and meaningful research. ;-)
> > 
> > > For example in case of NOCB scenario the wakeme_after_rcu() 
> > > callback invocation depends on where in a nocb-list it is located. 
> > > Below is an example when it was the last out of ~3600 callbacks:
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Can it be implemented separately as follows?  it seems that the code 
> is simpler (only personal opinion)  😊.
> 
> But I didn't test whether this reduce synchronize_rcu() waiting time
> 
> +static void rcu_poll_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp) {
> +       unsigned long gp_snap;
> +
> +       gp_snap = start_poll_synchronize_rcu();
> +       while (!poll_state_synchronize_rcu(gp_snap))
> +               schedule_timeout_idle(1); }
> +
> +void call_rcu_poll(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func); 
> +DEFINE_RCU_TASKS(rcu_poll, rcu_poll_wait_gp, call_rcu_poll,
> +                 "RCU Poll");
> +void call_rcu_poll(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func) {
> +       call_rcu_tasks_generic(rhp, func, &rcu_poll); } 
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu_poll);
> +
> +void synchronize_rcu_poll(void)
> +{
> +       synchronize_rcu_tasks_generic(&rcu_poll);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu_poll);
> +
> +static int __init rcu_spawn_poll_kthread(void) {
> +       cblist_init_generic(&rcu_poll);
> +       rcu_poll.gp_sleep = HZ / 10;
> +       rcu_spawn_tasks_kthread_generic(&rcu_poll);
> +       return 0;
> +}
> 
>Uh.. I am working on v2 of original patch where i need to add a Kconfig parameter. You are inventing a new API :)

Looking forward to V2 😊.

Thanks
Zqiang

>
>--
>Uladzislau Rezki