linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup code path

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, 1 Oct 2013 09:28:15 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
	"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup code path


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:13:52AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>  
> > So unlike a lot of other "let's try to make our locking fancy" that I 
> > dislike because it tends to hide the fundamental problem of 
> > contention, the rwlock patches make me go "those actually _fix_ a 
> > fundamental problem".
> 
> So here I'm slightly disagreeing; fixing a fundamental problem would be 
> coming up a better anon_vma management that doesn't create such immense 
> chains.

So, I think the fundamental problem seems to be that when rwsems are 
applied to this usecase, they still don't perform as well as a primitive 
rwlock.

That means that when rwsems cause a context switch it is a loss, while an 
rwlock_t burning CPU time by looping around is a win. I'm not sure it's 
even about 'immense chains' - if those were true then context-switching 
should actually improve performance by allowing other work to continue 
while the heavy chains are processed.

Alas that's not what happens!

Or is AIM7 essentially triggering a single large lock? I doubt that's the 
case though.

> Its still the same lock, spinlock or not.
> 
> And regardless of if we keep anon_vma lock a rwsem or not; I think we 
> should merge those rwsem patches as they do improve the lock 
> implementation and the hard work has already been done.

That I mostly agree with, except that without a serious usecase do we have 
a guarantee that bugs in fancies queueing in rwsems gets ironed out?

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/