linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 0/4] Introducing a queue read/write lock implementation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:08:35 -0500
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, aswin@...com,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 0/4] Introducing a queue read/write lock implementation

On 02/02/2014 04:03 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Waiman Long<waiman.long@...com>  wrote:
>
>> How about making the selection of MCS or ticket queuing either user
>> configurable or depending on the setting of NR_CPUS, NUMA, etc?
> No!
>
> There are lots of disadvantages to adding such CONFIG_NUMA Kconfig
> variants for locking primitives:
>
>   - an doubling of the test matrix
>
>   - an doubling of the review matrix and a halving of effective review
>     capacity: we've just about go the capacity to review and validate
>     patches like this. Splitting out a 'only NUMA cares' variant is a
>     non-starter really.
>
>   - but most importantly, there's absolutely no reason to not be fast
>     on 128 CPU systems in the low contended case either! Sacrificing
>     the low contended case with 'on 128 CPU systems it is the contended
>     path that matters' is an idiotic argument.
>
> Essentially the only area were we allow Kconfig dependencies are
> unyielding physical forces: such as lots of CPUs needing a wider CPU
> mask.
>
> As Peter said it, the right solution is to fix the contended case. If
> that also happens to speed up or better organize the uncondended code
> then that's good, but it should not make it worse.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	Ingo

You are right. I am trying to measure the performance impact of MCS 
queuing has on a lightly contended system. I need to write some custom 
test code to get that information. With that information, I may be able 
to tune it to perform more or less on par with ticket lock.

As for the additional cache line access of the MCS lock, I don't think 
it is really an issued as the MCS node is allocated on local stack which 
is likely to be in the cache anyway. I will report back when I have more 
data.

-Longman


--
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/