linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Reduce synchronize

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: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:23:01 +0100
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>, 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 v4 0/4] Reduce synchronize_rcu() latency(v4)

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:07:18PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 05:25:06PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > This is a v4 that tends to improve synchronize_rcu() call. To be more
> > specific it is about reducing a waiting time(especially worst cases)
> > of caller that blocks until a grace period is elapsed. 
> > 
> > In general, this series separates synchronize_rcu() callers from other
> > callbacks. We keep a dedicated an independent queue, thus the processing
> > of it starts as soon as grace period is over, so there is no need to wait
> > until other callbacks are processed one by one. Please note, a number of
> > callbacks can be 10K, 20K, 60K and so on. That is why this series maintain
> > a separate track for this call that blocks a context.
> 
> And before I forget (again), a possible follow-on to this work is to
> reduce cond_synchronize_rcu() and cond_synchronize_rcu_full() latency.
> Right now, these wait for a full additional grace period (and maybe
> more) when the required grace period has not elapsed.  In contrast,
> this work might enable waiting only for the needed portion of a grace
> period to elapse.
> 
Thanks. I see it. Probably we also need to move "sync" related
functionality out of tree.c file to the sync.c or something similar
to that name. IMO. 

Thanks!

--
Uladzislau Rezki