linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC ticketlock] Auto-queued ticketlock

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, 11 Jun 2013 11:46:48 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	赖江山 <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, niv@...ibm.com,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC ticketlock] Auto-queued ticketlock

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:10:31PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 10:53 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> 
> > I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I got some pretty bad aim7
> > performance numbers with this patch on an 8-socket (80 core) 256 Gb
> > memory DL980 box against a vanilla 3.10-rc4 kernel:
> 
> This doesn't surprise me as the spin lock now contains a function call
> on any contention. Not to mention the added i$ pressure on the embedded
> spinlock code having to setup a function call.
> 
> Even if the queues are not used, it adds a slight overhead to all
> spinlocks, due to the code size increase as well as a function call on
> all contention, which will also have an impact on i$ and branch
> prediction.

Was this system hyperthreaded?  If so, it might be suffering from the
misplaced cpu_relax(), which would mean that hardware threads spinning
on the lock would fail to inform the CPU that it was not doing anything
useful.

							Thanx, Paul

> > * shared workload: 
> > 10-100 users is in the noise area.
> > 100-2000 users: -13% throughput.
> > 
> > * high_systime workload: 
> > 10-700 users is in the noise area.
> > 700-2000 users: -55% throughput.
> > 
> > * disk:
> > 10-100 users -57% throughput.
> > 100-1000 users: -25% throughput
> > 1000-2000 users: +8% throughput (this patch only benefits when we have a
> 
> Perhaps this actually started using the queues?
> 
> > lot of concurrency).
> > 
> > * custom:
> > 10-100 users: -33% throughput.
> > 100-2000 users: -46% throughput.
> > 
> > * alltests:
> > 10-1000 users is in the noise area.
> > 1000-2000 users: -10% throughput.
> > 
> > One notable exception is the short workload where we actually see
> > positive numbers:
> > 10-100 users: +40% throughput.
> > 100-2000 users: +69% throughput.
> 
> Perhaps short work loads have a cold cache, and the impact on cache is
> not as drastic?
> 
> It would be interesting to see what perf reports on these runs.
> 
> -- Steve
> 
> 

--
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/