[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iL8o0UZTpomaT1oaMxRTBv1YdaXZGwXQn3H0dDO81UyGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 08:47:35 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/alternatives: remove false sharing in poke_int3_handler()
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 8:16 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > > What's the adversarial workload here? Spamming bpf_stats_enabled on all
> > > CPUs in parallel? Or mixing it with some other text_poke_bp_batch()
> > > user if bpf_stats_enabled serializes access?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > > Does anything undesirable happen in that case?
> >
> > The case of multiple threads trying to flip bpf_stats_enabled is
> > handled by bpf_stats_enabled_mutex.
>
> So my suggested workload wasn't adversarial enough due to
> bpf_stats_enabled_mutex: how about some other workload that doesn't
> serialize access to text_poke_bp_batch()?
Do you have a specific case in mind that I can test on these big platforms ?
text_poke_bp_batch() calls themselves are serialized by text_mutex, it
is not clear what you are looking for.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists