linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] softlockup: remove hung_task_check

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]

Date:	Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:52:15 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...gle.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rientjes@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com, thockin@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] softlockup: remove hung_task_check_count

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 05:55:14PM -0800, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> Frédéric Weisbecker (fweisbec@...il.com) wrote:
> > 2009/1/23 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>:
> > >
> > > not sure i like the whole idea of removing the max iterations check. In
> > > theory if there's a _ton_ of tasks, we could spend a lot of time looping
> > > there. So it always looked prudent to limit it somewhat.
> > >
> > 
> > Which means we can loose several of them. Would it hurt to iterate as
> > much as possible along the task list,
> > keeping some care about writers starvation and latency?
> > BTW I thought about the slow work framework, but I can't retrieve
> > it....  But this thread has already a slow priority.
> > 
> > Would it be interesting to provide a way for rwlocks to know if there
> > is writer waiting for the lock?
> 
> Would be cool if that API existed. You could release the CPU and/or lock as
> soon as either was contended for. You'd have the benefits of fine-grained
> locking without the overhead of locking and unlocking multiple time.
> 
> Currently, there is no bit that can tell you there is a writer waiting. You'd
> probably need to change the write_lock() implementation at a minimum. Maybe
> if the first writer left the RW_LOCK_BIAS bit clear and then waited for the
> readers to leave instead of re-trying? That would actually make write_lock()
> more efficient for the 1-writer case since you'd only need to spin doing
> a read in the failure case instead of an atomic_dec and atomic_inc.
> 


This is already what is done in the slow path (in x86):

/* rdi:	pointer to rwlock_t */
ENTRY(__write_lock_failed)
	CFI_STARTPROC
	LOCK_PREFIX
	addl $RW_LOCK_BIAS,(%rdi)
1:	rep
	nop
	cmpl $RW_LOCK_BIAS,(%rdi)
	jne 1b
	LOCK_PREFIX
	subl $RW_LOCK_BIAS,(%rdi)
	jnz  __write_lock_failed
	ret
	CFI_ENDPROC
END(__write_lock_failed)

It spins lurking at the lock value and only if there are no writers nor readers that
own the lock, it restarts its atomic_sub (and then atomic_add in fail case).

And if an implementation of writers_waiting_for_lock() is needed, I guess this
is the perfect place. One atomic_add on a "waiters_count" on entry and an atomic_sub
on it on exit.

Since this is the slow_path, I guess that wouldn't really impact the performances....

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/