linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu: Use system_unbound_wq to avoid disturbing isolated CPUs

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: <ZqEOZ8qPf1sadzB_@pc636>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:23:35 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
	Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vratislav Bendel <vbendel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Use system_unbound_wq to avoid disturbing isolated
 CPUs

On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 06:30:29AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 02:10:25PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > It was discovered that isolated CPUs could sometimes be disturbed by
> > kworkers processing kfree_rcu() works causing higher than expected
> > latency. It is because the RCU core uses "system_wq" which doesn't have
> > the WQ_UNBOUND flag to handle all its work items. Fix this violation of
> > latency limits by using "system_unbound_wq" in the RCU core instead.
> > This will ensure that those work items will not be run on CPUs marked
> > as isolated.
> > 
> > Beside the WQ_UNBOUND flag, the other major difference between system_wq
> > and system_unbound_wq is their max_active count. The system_unbound_wq
> > has a max_active of WQ_MAX_ACTIVE (512) while system_wq's max_active
> > is WQ_DFL_ACTIVE (256) which is half of WQ_MAX_ACTIVE.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Vratislav Bendel <vbendel@...hat.com>
> 
> I've seen this problem a while ago and reported to the list:
> 
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zp906X7VJGNKl5fW@gmail.com/
> 
> I've just applied this test, and run my workload for 2 hours without
> hitting this issue. Thanks for solving it.
> 
> Tested-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
>
Thank you for testing this! I saw your recent email about that :)

--
Uladzislau Rezki