| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <650554ca-17f6-4119-ab4e-42239c958c73@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 10:40:21 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>, Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] rcu: Improve handling of synchronize_rcu() users
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 11:52:33AM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 05:37:56PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:00:30AM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > > From: Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>
> > >
> > > Currently, processing of the next batch of rcu_synchronize nodes
> > > for the new grace period, requires doing a llist reversal operation
> > > to find the tail element of the list. This can be a very costly
> > > operation (high number of cache misses) for a long list.
> > >
> > > To address this, this patch introduces a "dummy-wait-node" entity.
> > > At every grace period init, a new wait node is added to the llist.
> > > This wait node is used as wait tail for this new grace period.
> > >
> > > This allows lockless additions of new rcu_synchronize nodes in the
> > > rcu_sr_normal_add_req(), while the cleanup work executes and does
> > > the progress. The dummy nodes are removed on next round of cleanup
> > > work execution.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>
> >
> > This says that Uladzislau created the patch and that Neeraj
> > acted as maintainer. I am guessing that you both worked on it,
> > in which case is should have the Co-developed-by tags as shown in
> > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. Could you please update
> > these to reflect the actual origin?
> >
> Right. We both worked on it. Neeraj is an author whereas i should mark
> myself as a Co-developed-by. This is a correct way. Thank you for
> pointing on it!
Sounds good, thank you!
> > One question below toward the end. There are probably others that I
> > should be asking, but I have to start somewhere. ;-)
> >
> Good :)
>
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Helper function for rcu_gp_init().
> > > */
> > > -static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_init(void)
> > > +static bool rcu_sr_normal_gp_init(void)
> > > {
> > > - struct llist_node *head, *tail;
> > > + struct llist_node *first;
> > > + struct llist_node *wait_head;
> > > + bool start_new_poll = false;
> > >
> > > - if (llist_empty(&sr.srs_next))
> > > - return;
> > > + first = READ_ONCE(sr.srs_next.first);
> > > + if (!first || rcu_sr_is_wait_head(first))
> > > + return start_new_poll;
> > > +
> > > + wait_head = rcu_sr_get_wait_head();
> > > + if (!wait_head) {
> > > + // Kick another GP to retry.
> > > + start_new_poll = true;
> > > + return start_new_poll;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > - tail = llist_del_all(&sr.srs_next);
> > > - head = llist_reverse_order(tail);
> > > + /* Inject a wait-dummy-node. */
> > > + llist_add(wait_head, &sr.srs_next);
> > >
> > > /*
> > > - * A waiting list of GP should be empty on this step,
> > > - * since a GP-kthread, rcu_gp_init() -> gp_cleanup(),
> > > + * A waiting list of rcu_synchronize nodes should be empty on
> > > + * this step, since a GP-kthread, rcu_gp_init() -> gp_cleanup(),
> > > * rolls it over. If not, it is a BUG, warn a user.
> > > */
> > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(!llist_empty(&sr.srs_wait));
> > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(sr.srs_wait_tail != NULL);
> > > + sr.srs_wait_tail = wait_head;
> > > + ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(sr.srs_wait_tail);
> > >
> > > - WRITE_ONCE(sr.srs_wait_tail, tail);
> > > - __llist_add_batch(head, tail, &sr.srs_wait);
> > > + return start_new_poll;
> > > }
> > >
> > > static void rcu_sr_normal_add_req(struct rcu_synchronize *rs)
> > > @@ -1493,6 +1684,7 @@ static noinline_for_stack bool rcu_gp_init(void)
> > > unsigned long mask;
> > > struct rcu_data *rdp;
> > > struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root();
> > > + bool start_new_poll;
> > >
> > > WRITE_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_activity, jiffies);
> > > raw_spin_lock_irq_rcu_node(rnp);
> > > @@ -1517,11 +1709,15 @@ static noinline_for_stack bool rcu_gp_init(void)
> > > /* Record GP times before starting GP, hence rcu_seq_start(). */
> > > rcu_seq_start(&rcu_state.gp_seq);
> > > ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(rcu_state.gp_seq);
> > > - rcu_sr_normal_gp_init();
> > > + start_new_poll = rcu_sr_normal_gp_init();
> > > trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rcu_state.gp_seq, TPS("start"));
> > > rcu_poll_gp_seq_start(&rcu_state.gp_seq_polled_snap);
> > > raw_spin_unlock_irq_rcu_node(rnp);
> > >
> > > + // New poll request after rnp unlock
> > > + if (start_new_poll)
> > > + (void) start_poll_synchronize_rcu();
> >
> > You lost me on this one. Anything that got moved to the wait list
> > should be handled by the current grace period, right? Or is the
> > problem that rcu_sr_normal_gp_init() is being invoked after the call
> > to rcu_seq_start()? If that is the case, could it be moved ahead so
> > that we don't need the extra grace period?
> >
> > Or am I missing something subtle here?
> >
> The problem is that, we are limited in number of "wait-heads" which we
> add as a marker node for this/current grace period. If there are more clients
> and there is no a wait-head available it means that a system, the deferred
> kworker, is slow in processing callbacks, thus all wait-nodes are in use.
>
> That is why we need an extra grace period. Basically to repeat our try one
> more time, i.e. it might be that a current grace period is not able to handle
> users due to the fact that a system is doing really slow, but this is rather
> a corner case and is not a problem.
But in that case, the real issue is not the need for an extra grace
period, but rather the need for the wakeup processing to happen, correct?
Or am I missing something subtle here?
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists