linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch 0/5] futex: Allow lockless empty check of hashbucket plist in futex

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, 30 Nov 2013 20:37:33 -0800
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Scott Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Tom Vaden <tom.vaden@...com>,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 0/5] futex: Allow lockless empty check of hashbucket
 plist in futex_wake()

On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 12:59 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:44:38PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > How about both enlarging the table _and_ aligning the buckets? As you
> > know, increasing the size of the table also benefits (particularly in
> > larger systems) in having more spinlocks. So we reduce the amount of
> > collisions and alleviate contention on the hb->lock. Btw, do you have
> > any particular concerns about the larger hash table patch? 
> 
> My only concern was the amount of #ifdef.
> 
> Wouldn't something like the below also work?

Below are the results for a workload that stresses the uaddr hashing for
large amounts of futexes (just make waits fail the uval check, so no
list handing overhead) on an 80 core, 1Tb NUMA system.

+---------+--------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
| threads | baseline (ops/sec) | aligned-only (ops/sec) | large table (ops/sec) | large table+aligned (ops/sec) |
+---------+--------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
|     512 |              32426 | 50531  (+55.8%)        | 255274  (+687.2%)     | 292553  (+802.2%)             |
|     256 |              65360 | 99588  (+52.3%)        | 443563  (+578.6%)     | 508088  (+677.3%)             |
|     128 |             125635 | 200075 (+59.2%)        | 742613  (+491.1%)     | 835452  (+564.9%)             |
|      80 |             193559 | 323425 (+67.1%)        | 1028147 (+431.1%)     | 1130304 (+483.9%)             |
|      64 |             247667 | 443740 (+79.1%)        | 997300  (+302.6%)     | 1145494 (+362.5%)             |
|      32 |             628412 | 721401 (+14.7%)        | 965996  (+53.7%)      | 1122115 (+78.5%)              |
+---------+--------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+

Baseline of course sucks compared to any other performance boost, and we
get the best throughput when applying both optimizations, no surprise.
We do particularly well for more than 32 threads, and the 'aligned-only'
column nicely exemplifies the benefits of SMP aligning the buckets
without considering the reduction in collisions.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
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/