linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH rcu 0/11] Add light-weight readers for SRCU

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: <gbar5cxixgq4jtxgtzv7xjipabhqqbwdwyrtahkkws3tregdvo@edqb7ku2uhk2>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 17:38:05 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel-team@...a.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu 0/11] Add light-weight readers for SRCU

On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 09:32:51AM GMT, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> This series provides light-weight readers for SRCU.  This lightness
> is selected by the caller by using the new srcu_read_lock_lite() and
> srcu_read_unlock_lite() flavors instead of the usual srcu_read_lock() and
> srcu_read_unlock() flavors.  Although this passes significant rcutorture
> testing, this should still be considered to be experimental.

This avoids memory barriers, correct?

> There are a few restrictions:  (1) If srcu_read_lock_lite() is called
> on a given srcu_struct structure, then no other flavor may be used on
> that srcu_struct structure, before, during, or after.  (2) The _lite()
> readers may only be invoked from regions of code where RCU is watching
> (as in those regions in which rcu_is_watching() returns true).  (3)
> There is no auto-expediting for srcu_struct structures that have
> been passed to _lite() readers.  (4) SRCU grace periods for _lite()
> srcu_struct structures invoke synchronize_rcu() at least twice, thus
> having longer latencies than their non-_lite() counterparts.  (5) Even
> with synchronize_srcu_expedited(), the resulting SRCU grace period
> will invoke synchronize_rcu() at least twice, as opposed to invoking
> the IPI-happy synchronize_rcu_expedited() function.  (6)  Just as with
> srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock(), the srcu_read_lock_lite() and
> srcu_read_unlock_lite() functions may not (repeat, *not*) be invoked
> from NMI handlers (that is what the _nmisafe() interface are for).
> Although one could imagine readers that were both _lite() and _nmisafe(),
> one might also imagine that the read-modify-write atomic operations that
> are needed by any NMI-safe SRCU read marker would make this unhelpful
> from a performance perspective.

So if I'm following, this should work fine for bcachefs, and be a nifty
small perforance boost.

Can I give you an account for my test cluster? If you'd like, we can
convert bcachefs to it and point it at your branch.