linux-kernel - Re: Performance regression from switching lock to rw-sem for anon-vma tree

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:	Mon, 05 Aug 2013 15:08:23 -0700
From:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, "Shi, Alex" <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	"Wilcox, Matthew R" <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Performance regression from switching lock to rw-sem for
 anon-vma tree

On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 21:24 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> > +config RWSEM_SPIN_ON_WRITE_OWNER
> > +	bool "Optimistic spin write acquisition for writer owned rw-sem"
> > +	default n
> > +	depends on SMP
> > +	help
> > +	  Allows a writer to perform optimistic spinning if another writer own
> > +	  the read write semaphore.  If the lock owner is running, it is likely
> > +	  to release the lock soon. Spinning gives a greater chance for writer to
> > +	  acquire a semaphore before putting it to sleep.
> 
> The way you've worded this new Kconfig option makes it 
> sound as if it's not just for testing, and I'm not a big 
> believer in extra Kconfig degrees of freedom for 
> scalability features of core locking primitives like 
> rwsems, in production kernels ...
> 
> So the bad news is that such scalability optimizations 
> really need to work for everyone.
> 
> The good news is that I don't think there's anything 
> particularly controversial about making the rwsem write 
> side perform just as well as mutexes - it would in fact be 
> a very nice quality of implementation feature: it gives 
> people freedom to switch between mutexes and rwsems without 
> having to worry about scalability differences too much.
> 

Sorry for replying to your email late as I was pulled to
some other tasks.

Ingo, any objection if I make the optimistic writer spin the
default for SMP without an extra config? This will make 
the rw_semaphore structure grow a bit to accommodate the
owner and spin_mlock field.

Thanks.

Tim
> Once readers are mixed into the workload can we keep the 
> XFS assumptions, if they are broken in any way?
> 
> We are spinning here so we have full awareness about the 
> state of the lock and we can react to a new reader in very 
> short order - so at a quick glance I don't see any 
> fundamental difficulty in being able to resolve it - beyond 
> the SMOP aspect that is ... :-)
> 
> 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/