linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 48/86] rcu: handle quiescent states for PREEMPT

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: <875y1bwen9.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Wed, 06 Dec 2023 16:10:18 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org
Cc:     Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.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, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        David.Laight@...lab.com, richard@....at, mjguzik@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 48/86] rcu: handle quiescent states for PREEMPT_RCU=n

Paul!

On Mon, Dec 04 2023 at 17:33, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 06:04:33PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> So:
>> 
>>     loop()
>> 
>>       preempt_disable();
>> 
>>       --> tick interrupt
>>             rcu_flavor_sched_clock_irq()
>>                 sets NEED_RESCHED
>> 
>>       preempt_enable()
>>         preempt_schedule()
>>           schedule()
>>             report_QS()
>> 
>> See? No magic nonsense in preempt_enable(), no cond_resched(), nothing.
>
> Understood, but that does delay detection of that quiescent state by up
> to one tick.

Sure, but does that really matter in practice?

>> So if that turns out to matter in reality and not just by academic
>> inspection, then we are far better off to annotate such code with:
>> 
>>     do {
>>         preempt_lazy_disable();
>>         mutex_lock();
>>         do_stuff();
>>         mutex_unlock();
>>         preempt_lazy_enable();
>>     }
>> 
>> and let preempt_lazy_enable() evaluate the NEED_RESCHED_LAZY bit.
>
> I am not exactly sure what semantics you are proposing with this pairing
> as opposed to "this would be a good time to preempt in response to the
> pending lazy request".  But I do agree that something like this could
> replace at least a few more instance of cond_resched(), so that is good.
> Not necessarily all of them, though.

The main semantic difference is that such a mechanism is properly
nesting and can be eventually subsumed into the actual locking
constructs.

>> Just insisting that RCU_PREEMPT=n requires cond_resched() and whatsoever
>> is not really getting us anywhere.
>
> Except that this is not what is happening, Thomas.  ;-)
>
> You are asserting that all of the cond_resched() calls can safely be
> eliminated.  That might well be, but more than assertion is required.
> You have come up with some good ways of getting rid of some classes of
> them, which is a very good and very welcome thing.  But that is not the
> same as having proved that all of them may be safely removed.

Neither have you proven that any of them will be required with the new
PREEMPT_LAZY model. :)

Your experience and knowledge in this area is certainly appreciated, but
under the changed semantics of LAZY it's debatable whether observations
and assumptions which are based on PREEMPT_NONE behaviour still apply.

We'll see.

Thanks,

        tglx