linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] rcu: limit PREEMPT

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: <c886bdf4-23d0-4c12-ae44-454226e92265@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:24:19 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
	vschneid@...hat.com, frederic@...nel.org, efault@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] rcu: limit PREEMPT_RCU configurations

On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 12:18:04PM -0700, Ankur Arora wrote:
> 
> Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 03:50:46PM -0700, Ankur Arora wrote:
> >> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> writes:
> >> > On 2024-10-15 15:13:46 [-0700], Ankur Arora wrote:
> >> >> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> writes:
> >> >>
> [ ... ]
> >> Sure. But, that's just begging the question.
> >>
> >> We want _NONE and _VOLUNTARY to go away because keeping cond_resched()
> >> around incurs a cost.
> >
> > When you say "go away", do you mean for your use cases?  Or globally?
> 
> When I say "want _ to go away" I mean: cond_resched() is deleterious
> to performance since you are forced to have code which can do the
> rescheduling check synchronously -- when this could easily be done
> asynchronously (as the non voluntary models do).
> 
> And this either means poor performance (ex. in the page zeroing code
> where it would be more optimal to work on continguous ranges) or
> gyrations like the ones that xen_pv_evtchn_do_upcall() and the
> Xen hypervisor have to go through.
> 
> And, as we've discussed before, the cond_resched() interface, while it
> works, is not ideal.

I would expect that many instances of cond_resched() could go away given
lazy preemption, but I would not be surprised if there were some that
needed to stay around.

Your thought being that if *all* instance of cond_resched() go away,
then PREEMPT_NONE also goes away?  Given how long PREEMPT_NONE has been
around, this would need to be done (and communicated) quite carefully.

> Also, a man can dream!

Fair enough, just be very careful to distinguish dreams from reality.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul