qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] crypto: fix bogus error benchmarking pbkdf on fast machines


From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: fix bogus error benchmarking pbkdf on fast machines
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 20:41:11 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird

On 08/01/2025 19.43, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
We're seeing periodic reports of errors like:

$ qemu-img create -f luks --object secret,data=123456,id=sec0 \
                   -o key-secret=sec0 luks-info.img 1M
   Formatting 'luks-info.img', fmt=luks size=1048576 key-secret=sec0
   qemu-img: luks-info.img: Unable to get accurate CPU usage

This error message comes from a recent attempt to workaround a
kernel bug with measuring rusage in long running processes:

   commit c72cab5ad9f849bbcfcf4be7952b8b8946cc626e
   Author: Tiago Pasqualini <tiago.pasqualini@canonical.com>
   Date:   Wed Sep 4 20:52:30 2024 -0300

     crypto: run qcrypto_pbkdf2_count_iters in a new thread

Unfortunately this has a subtle bug on machines which are very fast.

On the first time around the loop, the 'iterations' value is quite
small (1 << 15), and so will run quite fast. Testing has shown that
some machines can complete this benchmarking task in as little as
7 milliseconds.

Unfortunately the 'getrusage' data is not updated at the time of
the 'getrusage' call, it is done asynchronously by the schedular.
The 7 millisecond completion time for the benchmark is short
enough that 'getrusage' sometimes reports 0 accumulated execution
time.

As a result the 'delay_ms == 0' sanity check in the above commit
is triggering non-deterministically on such machines.

The benchmarking loop intended to run multiple times, increasing
the 'iterations' value until the benchmark ran for > 500 ms, but
the sanity check doesn't allow this to happen.

To fix it, we keep a loop counter and only run the sanity check
after we've been around the loop more than 5 times. At that point
the 'iterations' value is high enough that even with infrequent
updates of 'getrusage' accounting data on fast machines, we should
see a non-zero value.

Thanks, this seems to fix the issue for me:
Tested-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]