linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] cpuidle/poll_state: replace cpu_relax with smp_cond_load

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: <87r0fjtn9y.fsf@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 16:14:49 -0700
From: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
To: "Okanovic, Haris" <harisokn@...zon.com>
Cc: "mihai.carabas@...cle.com" <mihai.carabas@...cle.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "joao.m.martins@...cle.com"
 <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
        "dianders@...omium.org"
 <dianders@...omium.org>,
        "ankur.a.arora@...cle.com"
 <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
        "mic@...ikod.net" <mic@...ikod.net>,
        "pmladek@...e.com" <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "wanpengli@...cent.com"
 <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org"
 <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "catalin.marinas@....com"
 <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de"
 <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "daniel.lezcano@...aro.org"
 <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>, "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "npiggin@...il.com"
 <npiggin@...il.com>,
        "vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        "juerg.haefliger@...onical.com" <juerg.haefliger@...onical.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
 <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] cpuidle/poll_state: replace cpu_relax with
 smp_cond_load_relaxed


Okanovic, Haris <harisokn@...zon.com> writes:

> On Thu, 2024-02-15 at 09:41 +0200, Mihai Carabas wrote:
>> cpu_relax on ARM64 does a simple "yield". Thus we replace it with
>> smp_cond_load_relaxed which basically does a "wfe".
>>
>> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Carabas <mihai.carabas@...cle.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c b/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
>> index 9b6d90a72601..1e45be906e72 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>>  static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>>  			       struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index)
>>  {
>> +	unsigned long ret;
>>  	u64 time_start;
>>
>>  	time_start = local_clock_noinstr();
>> @@ -26,12 +27,16 @@ static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>>
>>  		limit = cpuidle_poll_time(drv, dev);
>>
>> -		while (!need_resched()) {
>> -			cpu_relax();
>> -			if (loop_count++ < POLL_IDLE_RELAX_COUNT)
>> -				continue;
>> -
>> +		for (;;) {
>>  			loop_count = 0;
>> +
>> +			ret = smp_cond_load_relaxed(&current_thread_info()->flags,
>> +						    VAL & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED ||
>> +						    loop_count++ >= POLL_IDLE_RELAX_COUNT);
>
> Is it necessary to repeat this 200 times with a wfe poll?

The POLL_IDLE_RELAX_COUNT is there because on x86 each cpu_relax()
iteration is much shorter.

With WFE, it makes less sense.

> Does kvm not implement a timeout period?

Not yet, but it does become more useful after a WFE haltpoll is
available on ARM64.

Haltpoll does have a timeout, which you should be able to tune via
/sys/module/haltpoll/parameters/ but that, of course, won't help here.

> Could you make it configurable? This patch improves certain workloads
> on AWS Graviton instances as well, but blocks up to 6ms in 200 * 30us
> increments before going to wfi, which is a bit excessive.

Yeah, this looks like a problem. We could solve it by making it an
architectural parameter. Though I worry about ARM platforms with
much smaller default timeouts.
The other possibility is using WFET in the primitive, but then we
have that dependency and that's a bigger change.

Will address this in the next version.

Thanks for pointing this out.

--
ankur