linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/mmu_gather: send tlb_remove_table_smp

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: <ZC6/0hRXztNwqXg0@tpad>
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 09:49:22 -0300
From:   Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Yair Podemsky <ypodemsk@...hat.com>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        mpe@...erman.id.au, npiggin@...il.com, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu,
        hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com, agordeev@...ux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, svens@...ux.ibm.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, will@...nel.org, aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de, keescook@...omium.org,
        paulmck@...nel.org, jpoimboe@...nel.org, samitolvanen@...gle.com,
        ardb@...nel.org, juerg.haefliger@...onical.com,
        rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk, geert+renesas@...der.be,
        tony@...mide.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        sebastian.reichel@...labora.com, nick.hawkins@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, vschneid@...hat.com, dhildenb@...hat.com,
        alougovs@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/mmu_gather: send tlb_remove_table_smp_sync IPI
 only to CPUs in kernel mode

On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 09:54:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 04:43:14PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> 
> > Two points:
> > 
> > 1) For a virtualized system, the overhead is not only of executing the
> > IPI but:
> > 
> > 	VM-exit
> > 	run VM-exit code in host
> > 	handle IPI
> > 	run VM-entry code in host
> > 	VM-entry
> 
> I thought we could do IPIs without VMexit these days? 

Yes, IPIs to vCPU (guest context). In this case we can consider
an IPI to the host pCPU (which requires VM-exit from guest context).

> Also virt... /me walks away.
> 
> > 2) Depends on the application and the definition of "occasional".
> > 
> > For certain types of applications (for example PLC software or
> > RAN processing), upon occurrence of an event, it is necessary to
> > complete a certain task in a maximum amount of time (deadline).
> 
> If the application is properly NOHZ_FULL and never does a kernel entry,
> it will never get that IPI. If it is a pile of shit and does kernel
> entries while it pretends to be NOHZ_FULL it gets to keep the pieces and
> no amount of crying will get me to care.

I suppose its common practice to use certain system calls in latency
sensitive applications, for example nanosleep. Some examples:

1) cyclictest		(nanosleep)
2) PLC programs		(nanosleep)

A system call does not necessarily have to take locks, does it ?

Or even if application does system calls, but runs under a VM,
then you are requiring it to never VM-exit.

This reduces the flexibility of developing such applications.