linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v4 3/5] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor

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, 26 Jan 2013 13:03:20 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aquini@...hat.com, walken@...gle.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, lwoodman@...hat.com, knoel@...hat.com,
	chegu_vinod@...com, raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 3/5] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor


* Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> 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>
> Acked-by: Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.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 };

This one's ugly too, in several ways, please improve it.

> +		if (head == ticket) {
> +			/*
> +			 * We overslept, and do not know by how.

s/by how./by how much.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/