linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] context_tracking,x86: Defer some IPIs until a user->kernel transition

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]

Date:   Thu, 06 Jul 2023 12:29:58 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@...onical.com>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@...nel.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
        Chuang Wang <nashuiliang@...il.com>,
        Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@...wei.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
        Julian Pidancet <julian.pidancet@...cle.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        Yair Podemsky <ypodemsk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] context_tracking,x86: Defer some IPIs until a
 user->kernel transition

On 05/07/23 18:48, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 2023, at 11:12 AM, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Deferral approach
>> =================
>>
>> Storing each and every callback, like a secondary call_single_queue turned out
>> to be a no-go: the whole point of deferral is to keep NOHZ_FULL CPUs in
>> userspace for as long as possible - no signal of any form would be sent when
>> deferring an IPI. This means that any form of queuing for deferred callbacks
>> would end up as a convoluted memory leak.
>>
>> Deferred IPIs must thus be coalesced, which this series achieves by assigning
>> IPIs a "type" and having a mapping of IPI type to callback, leveraged upon
>> kernel entry.
>
> I have some experience with similar an optimization. Overall, it can make
> sense and as you show, it can reduce the number of interrupts.
>
> The main problem of such an approach might be in cases where a process
> frequently enters and exits the kernel between deferred-IPIs, or even worse -
> the IPI is sent while the remote CPU is inside the kernel. In such cases, you
> pay the extra cost of synchronization and cache traffic, and might not even
> get the benefit of reducing the number of IPIs.
>
> In a sense, it's a more extreme case of the overhead that x86’s lazy-TLB
> mechanism introduces while tracking whether a process is running or not. But
> lazy-TLB would change is_lazy much less frequently than context tracking,
> which means that the deferring the IPIs as done in this patch-set has a
> greater potential to hurt performance than lazy-TLB.
>
> tl;dr - it would be beneficial to show some performance number for both a
> “good” case where a process spends most of the time in userspace, and “bad”
> one where a process enters and exits the kernel very frequently. Reducing
> the number of IPIs is good but I don’t think it is a goal by its own.
>

There already is a significant overhead incurred on kernel entry for
nohz_full CPUs due to all of context_tracking faff; now I *am* making it
worse with that extra atomic, but I get the feeling it's not going to stay
:D

nohz_full CPUs that do context transitions very frequently are
unfortunately in the realm of "you shouldn't do that". Due to what's out
there I have to care about *occasional* transitions, but some folks
consider even that to be broken usage, so I don't believe getting numbers
for that to be much relevant.

> [ BTW: I did not go over the patches in detail. Obviously, there are
>   various delicate points that need to be checked, as avoiding the
>   deferring of IPIs if page-tables are freed. ]