netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] v2 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods

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: <20090427032639.GA10087@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:26:39 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	dada1@...mosbay.com, zbr@...emap.net, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com,
	paulus@...ba.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com, jengelh@...ozas.de,
	r000n@...0n.net, benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] v2 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods


* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:22:55PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > * Ingo Molnar (mingo@...e.hu) wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Second cut of "big hammer" expedited RCU grace periods, but only 
> > > > > for rcu_bh.  This creates another softirq vector, so that entering 
> > > > > this softirq vector will have forced an rcu_bh quiescent state (as 
> > > > > noted by Dave Miller).  Use smp_call_function() to invoke 
> > > > > raise_softirq() on all CPUs in order to cause this to happen.  
> > > > > Track the CPUs that have passed through a quiescent state (or gone 
> > > > > offline) with a cpumask.
> > > > 
> > > > hm, i'm still asking whether doing this would be simpler via a 
> > > > reschedule vector - which not only is an existing facility but also 
> > > > forces all RCU domains through a quiescent state - not just bh-RCU 
> > > > participants.
> > > > 
> > > > Triggering a new softirq is in no way simpler that doing an SMP 
> > > > cross-call - in fact softirqs are a finite resource so using some 
> > > > other facility would be preferred.
> > > > 
> > > > Am i missing something?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I think the reason for this whole thread is that waiting for rcu 
> > > quiescent state, when called many times e.g. in multiple iptables 
> > > invokations, takes too longs (5 seconds to load the netfilter 
> > > rules at boot). [...]
> > 
> > I'm aware of the problem space.
> > 
> > I was suggesting that to trigger the quiescent state and to wait for 
> > it to propagate it would be enough to reuse the reschedule 
> > mechanism.
> > 
> > It would be relatively straightforward: first a send-reschedule then 
> > do a wait_task_context_switch() on rq->curr - both are existing 
> > primitives. (a task reference has to be taken but that's pretty much 
> > all)
> 
> Well, one reason I didn't take this approach was that I didn't 
> happen to think of it.  ;-)
> 
> Also that I hadn't heard of wait_task_context_switch().
> 
> Hmmm...  Looking for wait_task_context_switch().  OK, found it.
> 
> It looks to me that this primitive won't return until the 
> scheduler actually decides to run something else.  We instead need 
> to have something that stops waiting once the CPU enters the 
> scheduler, hence the previous thought of making rcu_qsctr_inc() do 
> a bit of extra work.
> 
> This would be a way of making an expedited RCU-sched across all 
> RCU implementations.  As noted in the earlier email, it would not 
> handle RCU or RCU-bh in a -rt kernel.
> 
> > By the time wait_task_context_switch() returns from the last CPU 
> > we know that the quiescent state has passed.
> 
> We would want to wait for all of the CPUs in parallel, though, 
> wouldn't we?  Seems that we would not want to wait for the last 
> CPU to do another trip through the scheduler if it had already 
> passed through the scheduler while we were waiting on the earlier 
> CPUs.
> 
> So it seems like we would still want a two-pass approach -- one 
> pass to capture the current state, the second pass to wait for the 
> state to change.

I think waiting in parallel is still possible (first kick all tasks, 
then make sure all tasks have left the CPU at least once).

The busy-waiting in wait_task_context_switch() is indeed a problem - 
but perhaps that could be refactored to be a migration-thread driven 
wait_for_completion() + complete() cycle? It could be driven by 
preempt notifiers perhaps - and become zero-cost.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html