linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC rcu] Stop rcu_tasks_invoke

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: <ZEmhAzUMnQ1rP2YU@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:09:07 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...a.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, riel@...riel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC rcu] Stop rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() from using
 never-online CPUs

Hello, Paul.

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 02:55:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> But if the call_rcu_tasks_*() code detects too much lock contention on
> CPU 0's queue, which indicates that very large numbers of callbacks are
> being queued, it switches to per-CPU mode.  In which case, we are likely
> to have lots of callbacks on lots of queues, and in that case we really
> want to invoke them concurrently.
> 
> Then if a later grace period finds that there are no more callbacks, it
> switches back to CPU-0 mode.  So this extra workqueue overhead should
> happen only on systems with sparse cpu_online_masks that are under heavy
> call_rcu_tasks_*() load.

I still wonder whether it can be solved by simply switching to unbound
workqueues instead of implementing custom load-spreading mechanism. We'd be
basically asking the scheduler to what it thinks is best instead of trying
to make manual CPU placement decisions. That said, as a fix, the original
patch looks fine to me. Gonna go ack that.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun