linux-kernel - Re: [linus:master] [x86] 4817f70c25: stress-ng.mmapaddr.ops_per

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: <Z5pdF1w9Lcwpdixp@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2025 17:53:43 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
	Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
	kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>, oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev,
	lkp@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
	Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@...gle.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [x86] 4817f70c25: stress-ng.mmapaddr.ops_per_sec
 63.0% regression

Le Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 08:36:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 11:14:29AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Wed, 2025-01-29 at 16:12 +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:59:20AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > Below is a tentative fix for the issue. It is kind of a big hammer,
> > > > and maybe the RCU people have a better idea on how to solve this
> > > > problem, but it may be worth giving this a try to see if it helps
> > > > with the regression you identified.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps better to do:
> > > 
> > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > @@ -97,8 +97,8 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(pcp_batch_high_lock);
> > >   * On SMP, spin_trylock is sufficient protection.
> > >   * On PREEMPT_RT, spin_trylock is equivalent on both SMP and UP.
> > >   */
> > > -#define pcp_trylock_prepare(flags)     do { } while (0)
> > > -#define pcp_trylock_finish(flag)       do { } while (0)
> > > +#define pcp_trylock_prepare(flags)     rcu_read_lock()
> > > +#define pcp_trylock_finish(flag)       rcu_reada_unlock()
> > >  #else
> > > 
> > >  /* UP spin_trylock always succeeds so disable IRQs to prevent re-
> > > entrancy. */
> > > 
> > > with appropriate comment changes
> > > 
> > Agreed. Assuming this change even works :)
> > 
> > Paul, does this look like it could do the trick,
> > or do we need something else to make RCU freeing
> > happy again?
> 
> I don't claim to fully understand the issue, but this would prevent
> any RCU grace periods starting subsequently from completing.  It would
> not prevent RCU callbacks from being invoked for RCU grace periods that
> started earlier.
> 
> So it won't prevent RCU callbacks from being invoked.
> 
> It *will* ensure that only a finite number of RCU callbacks get invoked.
> For some perhaps rather large value of "finite".
> 
> Does that help, or is more required?

I don't fully understand the issue either but would spin_lock_bh() help?

Thanks.