netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] Introduce simple hazard pointers for lockdep

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aAC6PgzV1kOHT2go@pc636>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 10:22:22 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, aeh@...a.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	edumazet@...gle.com, jhs@...atatu.com, kernel-team@...a.com,
	Erik Lundgren <elundgren@...a.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] Introduce simple hazard pointers for lockdep

Hello, Breno!

> Hello Vlad,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 05:04:31PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 07:14:04AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > > Hi Boqun,
> > > 
> > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 11:00:47PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Overall it looks promising to me, but I would like to see how it
> > > > performs in the environment of Breno. Also as Paul always reminds me:
> > > > buggy code usually run faster, so please take a look in case I'm missing
> > > > something ;-) Thanks!
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the patchset. I've confirmed that the wins are large on my
> > > environment, but, at the same magnitute of synchronize_rcu_expedited().
> > > 
> > > Here are the numbers I got:
> > > 
> > > 	6.15-rc1 (upstream)
> > > 		# time /usr/sbin/tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root handle 0x1234: mq
> > > 		real	0m3.986s
> > > 		user	0m0.001s
> > > 		sys	0m0.093s
> > > 
> > > 	Your patchset on top of 6.15-rc1
> > > 		# time /usr/sbin/tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root handle 0x1234: mq
> > > 		real	0m0.072s
> > > 		user	0m0.001s
> > > 		sys	0m0.070s
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 	My original proposal of using synchronize_rcu_expedited()[1]
> > > 		# time /usr/sbin/tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root handle 0x1234: mq
> > > 		real	0m0.074s
> > > 		user	0m0.001s
> > > 		sys	0m0.061s
> > > 
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250321-lockdep-v1-1-78b732d195fb@debian.org/ [1]
> > > 
> > Could you please also do the test of fist scenario with a regular
> > synchronize_rcu() but switch to its faster variant:
> > 
> > echo 1 > /sys/module/rcutree/parameters/rcu_normal_wake_from_gp
> > 
> > and run the test. If you have a time.
> 
> Of course, I am more than interesting in this topic. This is what I run:
> 
> 
> 	# /usr/sbin/tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root handle 0x1: mq; time /usr/sbin/tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root handle 0x1234: mq
> 	real	0m4.150s
> 	user	0m0.001s
> 	sys	0m0.076s
> 
> 	[root@...t2 ~]# echo 1 > /sys/module/rcutree/parameters/rcu_normal_wake_from_gp
> 	[root@...t2 ~]# /usr/sbin/tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root handle 0x1: mq; time /usr/sbin/tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root handle 0x1234: mq
> 	real	0m4.225s
> 	user	0m0.000s
> 	sys	0m0.106s
> 
> 	[root@...t2 ~]# cat /sys/module/rcutree/parameters/rcu_normal_wake_from_gp
> 	1
> 	[root@...t2 ~]# echo 0 > /sys/module/rcutree/parameters/rcu_normal_wake_from_gp
> 	[root@...t2 ~]# /usr/sbin/tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root handle 0x1: mq; time /usr/sbin/tc qdisc replace dev eth0 root handle 0x1234: mq
> 	real	0m4.152s
> 	user	0m0.001s
> 	sys	0m0.099s
> 
> It seems it made very little difference?
> 
Yep, no difference. In your case you just need to speed up a grace
period completion. So an expedited version really improves your case.

So you do not have a lot of callbacks which may delay a normal GP.

Thank you!

--
Uladzislau Rezki