linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 0/6][RFC] futex: FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptive spinning

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:	Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:36:38 -0700
From:	Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"Peter W. Morreale" <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@...ell.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	John Cooper <john.cooper@...rd-harmonic.com>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/6][RFC] futex: FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptive
 spinning

Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:31, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>> We need to figure out a more efficient way to
>>> do the spinning in the kernel where we have all the necessary
>>> information already.
>> Really?  The owner information isn't in general available in the
>> kernel.  Futex operation doesn't require the value used to be the PID
>> (or negative of the PID).  That is a dramatic limitation of the
>> usefulness of futexes.
> 
> I know that you can do any weird stuff with the futex value, but I
> don't see the "dramatic" limitation. Care to elaborate ?
> 
>> At userlevel there is access to other fields of the data structure
>> which can contain the owner information.
>>
>> I would like to see the method using a per-thread pinned page and an
>> update of a memory location on scheduling.  For benchmarking at least.
> 
> The per thread pinned page would be unconditional, right ?
> 
> I agree that benchmarking would be interesting, but OTOH I fear that
> we open up a huge can of worms with exposing scheduler details and the
> related necessary syscalls like sys_yield_to: User space thread
> management/scheduling comes to my mind and I hope we agree that we do
> not want to revisit that.
> 
>>  I agree that a sys_yield_to() syscall would be at the very least
>> useful as well.  But it's useful for other things already.
> 
> Useful for what ?
> 
> What are the exact semantics of such a syscall ? 
> 
> How does that fit into the various scheduling constraints ?


I believe this comes back to the discussions of a directed yield. The 
idea being that a thread yields its remaining timeslice to a thread of 
it's choosing - usually because the target thread holds a resource the 
yielding thread needs access to. This makes the yield more explicit so 
the yielding thread is more likely to get some benefit out of yielding.

I believe the arguments would be either a TID or a thread group - 
however that is specified. I believe the KVM guys would like to see 
something like this as well - which might be the "other things" referred 
to above.

-- 
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team
--
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/