linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/86] Make the kernel preemptible

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: <ba99f6d1-c034-5153-d2ad-02d244f9db10@suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2023 08:54:22 +0100
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:     Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        peterz@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        paulmck@...nel.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, jon.grimm@....com,
        bharata@....com, raghavendra.kt@....com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        bristot@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        geert@...ux-m68k.org, glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de,
        anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com, mattst88@...il.com,
        krypton@...ich-teichert.org, David.Laight@...LAB.COM,
        richard@....at, mjguzik@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/86] Make the kernel preemptible

On 11/8/23 06:12, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 20:52:39 -0800 (PST)
> Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2023, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> 
>> > This came up in an earlier discussion (See
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87cyyfxd4k.ffs@tglx/) and Thomas mentioned
>> > that preempt_enable/_disable() overhead was relatively minimal.
>> >
>> > Is your point that always-on preempt_count is far too expensive?  
>> 
>> Yes over the years distros have traditionally delivered their kernels by 
>> default without preemption because of these issues. If the overhead has 
>> been minimized then that may have changed. Even if so there is still a lot 
>> of code being generated that has questionable benefit and just 
>> bloats the kernel.
>> 
>> >> These are needed to avoid adding preempt_enable/disable to a lot of primitives
>> >> that are used for synchronization. You cannot remove those without changing a
>> >> lot of synchronization primitives to always have to consider being preempted
>> >> while operating.  
>> >
>> > I'm afraid I don't understand why you would need to change any
>> > synchronization primitives. The code that does preempt_enable/_disable()
>> > is compiled out because CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE/_VOLUNTARY don't define
>> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT.  
>> 
>> In the trivial cases it is simple like that. But look f.e.
>> in the slub allocator at the #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPTION section. There is a 
>> overhead added to be able to allow the cpu to change under us. There are 
>> likely other examples in the source.
>> 
> 
> preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() are much lower overhead today than
> it use to be.
> 
> If you are worried about changing CPUs, there's also migrate_disable() too.

Note that while migrate_disable() would be often sufficient, the
implementation of it has actually more overhead (function call, does
preempt_disable()/enable() as part of it) than just preempt_disable(). See
for example the pcpu_task_pin() definition in mm/page_alloc.c