linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] sched: define TIF_ALLOW

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <877cowz4pk.fsf@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Sep 2023 16:10:31 -0700
From:   Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de, tglx@...utronix.de,
        jon.grimm@....com, bharata@....com, raghavendra.kt@....com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] sched: define TIF_ALLOW_RESCHED


Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> writes:

> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:50:53 -0700
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>> And it seems like it's actually server people who want the "no
>> preemption" (and presumably avoid all the preempt count stuff entirely
>> - it's not necessarily the *preemption* that is the cost, it's the
>> incessant preempt count updates)
>
> I'm sure there's some overhead with the preemption itself. With the
> meltdown/spectre mitigations going into and out of the kernel does add some
> more overhead. And finishing a system call before being preempted may give
> some performance benefits for some micro benchmark out there.
>
> Going out on a crazy idea, I wonder if we could get the compiler to help us
> here. As all preempt disabled locations are static, and as for functions,
> they can be called with preemption enabled or disabled. Would it be
> possible for the compiler to mark all locations that need preemption disabled?

An even crazier version of that idea would be to have
preempt_disable/enable() demarcate regions, and the compiler putting all
of the preemption disabled region out-of-line to a special section.
Seems to me, that then we could do away to preempt_enable/disable()?
(Ignoring the preempt_count used in hardirq etc.)

This would allow preemption always, unless executing in the
preemption-disabled section.

Though I don't have any intuition for how much extra call overhead this
would add.

Ankur

> If a function is called in a preempt disabled section and also called in a
> preempt enable section, it could make two versions of the function (one
> where preemption is disabled and one where it is enabled).
>
> Then all we would need is a look up table to know if preemption is safe or
> not by looking at the instruction pointer.
>
> Yes, I know this is kind of a wild idea, but I do believe it is possible.
>
> The compiler wouldn't need to know of the concept of "preemption" just a
> "make this location special, and keep functions called by that location
> special and duplicate them if they are are called outside of this special
> section".
>
>  ;-)
>
> -- Steve