| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:13:39 -0200
From: Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, walken@...gle.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, lwoodman@...hat.com, jeremy@...p.org,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, knoel@...hat.com,
chegu_vinod@...com, raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 05:30:29PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Many spinlocks are embedded in data structures; having many CPUs
> pounce on the cache line the lock is in will slow down the lock
> holder, and can cause system performance to fall off a cliff.
>
> The paper "Non-scalable locks are dangerous" is a good reference:
>
> http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/linux:lock.pdf
>
> In the Linux kernel, spinlocks are optimized for the case of
> there not being contention. After all, if there is contention,
> the data structure can be improved to reduce or eliminate
> lock contention.
>
> Likewise, the spinlock API should remain simple, and the
> common case of the lock not being contended should remain
> as fast as ever.
>
> However, since spinlock contention should be fairly uncommon,
> we can add functionality into the spinlock slow path that keeps
> system performance from falling off a cliff when there is lock
> contention.
>
> Proportional delay in ticket locks is delaying the time between
> checking the ticket based on a delay factor, and the number of
> CPUs ahead of us in the queue for this lock. Checking the lock
> less often allows the lock holder to continue running, resulting
> in better throughput and preventing performance from dropping
> off a cliff.
>
> Proportional spinlock delay with a high delay factor works well
> when there is lots contention on a lock. Likewise, a smaller
> delay factor works well when a lock is lightly contended.
>
> Making the code auto-tune the delay factor results in a system
> that performs well with both light and heavy lock contention.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> ---
> v3: use fixed-point math for the delay calculations, suggested by Michel Lespinasse
>
Acked-by: Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
> arch/x86/kernel/smp.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c
> index aa743e9..05f828b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -113,13 +113,34 @@ static atomic_t stopping_cpu = ATOMIC_INIT(-1);
> static bool smp_no_nmi_ipi = false;
>
> /*
> - * Wait on a congested ticket spinlock.
> + * Wait on a congested ticket spinlock. Many spinlocks are embedded in
> + * data structures; having many CPUs pounce on the cache line with the
> + * spinlock simultaneously can slow down the lock holder, and the system
> + * as a whole.
> + *
> + * To prevent total performance collapse in case of bad spinlock contention,
> + * perform proportional backoff. The per-cpu value of delay is automatically
> + * tuned to limit the number of times spinning CPUs poll the lock before
> + * obtaining it. This limits the amount of cross-CPU traffic required to obtain
> + * a spinlock, and keeps system performance from dropping off a cliff.
> + *
> + * There is a tradeoff. If we poll too often, the whole system is slowed
> + * down. If we sleep too long, the lock will go unused for a period of
> + * time. The solution is to go for a fast spin if we are at the head of
> + * the queue, to slowly increase the delay if we sleep for too short a
> + * time, and to decrease the delay if we slept for too long.
> */
> +#define DELAY_SHIFT 8
> +#define DELAY_FIXED_1 (1<<DELAY_SHIFT)
> +#define MIN_SPINLOCK_DELAY (1 * DELAY_FIXED_1)
> +#define MAX_SPINLOCK_DELAY (16000 * DELAY_FIXED_1)
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned, spinlock_delay) = { MIN_SPINLOCK_DELAY };
> void ticket_spin_lock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock, struct __raw_tickets inc)
> {
> __ticket_t head = inc.head, ticket = inc.tail;
> __ticket_t waiters_ahead;
> - unsigned loops;
> + unsigned delay = __this_cpu_read(spinlock_delay);
> + unsigned loops = 1;
>
> for (;;) {
> waiters_ahead = ticket - head - 1;
> @@ -133,14 +154,28 @@ void ticket_spin_lock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock, struct __raw_tickets inc)
> } while (ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head) != ticket);
> break;
> }
> - loops = 50 * waiters_ahead;
> +
> + /* Aggressively increase delay, to minimize lock accesses. */
> + if (delay < MAX_SPINLOCK_DELAY)
> + delay += DELAY_FIXED_1 / 7;
> +
> + loops = (delay * waiters_ahead) >> DELAY_SHIFT;
> while (loops--)
> cpu_relax();
>
> head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
> - if (head == ticket)
> + if (head == ticket) {
> + /*
> + * We overslept, and do not know by how.
> + * Exponentially decay the value of delay,
> + * to get it back to a good value quickly.
> + */
> + if (delay >= 2 * DELAY_FIXED_1)
> + delay -= max(delay/32, DELAY_FIXED_1);
> break;
> + }
> }
> + __this_cpu_write(spinlock_delay, delay);
> }
>
> /*
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists