Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 09:15:37 -0700
From:   Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Sun, Jiebin" <jiebin.sun@intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, vasily.averin@linux.dev,
        shakeelb@google.com, tj@kernel.org, cl@linux.com,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, legion@kernel.org, manfred@colorfullife.com,
        alexander.mikhalitsyn@virtuozzo.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tim.c.chen@intel.com,
        feng.tang@intel.com, ying.huang@intel.com, tianyou.li@intel.com,
        wangyang.guo@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ipc/msg: mitigate the lock contention with percpu
 counter
Message-ID: <YxoVKVVfnrq3js9O@fedora>
References: <CALvZod44uUFnwfF4StC24t+d1s_XE10hkmSCgb04FjtTATo6xQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220907172516.1210842-1-jiebin.sun@intel.com>
 <eb13cb3e5e1625afe1bb783810f4d6b52a66a2f6.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <20220907143427.0ce54bbf096943ffca197fee@linux-foundation.org>
 <c8e771c8-4b01-f2b4-5b54-e9931f556270@intel.com>
 <20220908083859.24c989f08d62ddbd031005de@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220908083859.24c989f08d62ddbd031005de@linux-foundation.org>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:38:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:25:47 +0800 "Sun, Jiebin" <jiebin.sun@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > In our case, if the local 
> > percpu counter is near to INT_MAX and there comes a big msgsz, the 
> > overflow issue could happen.
> 
> percpu_counter_add_batch() handles this - your big message
> won't overflow an s64.
> 
> 
> Lookng at percpu_counter_add_batch(), is this tweak right?
> 
> - don't need to update *fbc->counters inside the lock
> - that __this_cpu_sub() is an obscure way of zeroing the thing
> 
> --- a/lib/percpu_counter.c~a
> +++ a/lib/percpu_counter.c
> @@ -89,8 +89,8 @@ void percpu_counter_add_batch(struct per
>  		unsigned long flags;
>  		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&fbc->lock, flags);
>  		fbc->count += count;
> -		__this_cpu_sub(*fbc->counters, count - amount);
>  		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fbc->lock, flags);
> +		__this_cpu_write(*fbc->counters, 0);

I don't think this is irq safe. It'd be best to leave it inside the
spinlock as then we can use __this_cpu_write() to 0 in there.

>  	} else {
>  		this_cpu_add(*fbc->counters, amount);
>  	}
> _
> 

Thanks,
Dennis