netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] v5 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: <20090519085825.GA9388@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 19 May 2009 10:58:25 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	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,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] v5 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods


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

> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 05:42:41PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > i might be missing something fundamental here, but why not just 
> > > > have per CPU helper threads, all on the same waitqueue, and wake 
> > > > them up via a single wake_up() call? That would remove the SMP 
> > > > cross call (wakeups do immediate cross-calls already).
> > > 
> > > My concern with this is that the cache misses accessing all the 
> > > processes on this single waitqueue would be serialized, slowing 
> > > things down. In contrast, the bitmask that smp_call_function() 
> > > traverses delivers on the order of a thousand CPUs' worth of bits 
> > > per cache miss.  I will give it a try, though.
> > 
> > At least if you go via the migration threads, you can queue up 
> > requests to them locally. But there's going to be cachemisses 
> > _anyway_, since you have to access them all from a single CPU, 
> > and then they have to fetch details about what to do, and then 
> > have to notify the originator about completion.
> 
> Ah, so you are suggesting that I use smp_call_function() to run 
> code on each CPU that wakes up that CPU's migration thread?  I 
> will take a look at this.

My suggestion was to queue up a dummy 'struct migration_req' up with 
it (change migration_req::task == NULL to mean 'nothing') and simply 
wake it up using wake_up_process().

That will force a quiescent state, without the need for any extra 
information, right?

This is what the scheduler code does, roughly:

                wake_up_process(rq->migration_thread);
                wait_for_completion(&req.done);

and this will always have to perform well. The 'req' could be put 
into PER_CPU, and a loop could be done like this:

	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
                wake_up_process(cpu_rq(cpu)->migration_thread);

	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
                wait_for_completion(&per_cpu(req, cpu).done);

hm?

	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