linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 06/19] qspinlock: prolong the stay in the pending bit 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:	Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:36:40 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@...il.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 06/19] qspinlock: prolong the stay in the pending bit
 path

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:58AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> There is a problem in the current trylock_pending() function.  When the
> lock is free, but the pending bit holder hasn't grabbed the lock &
> cleared the pending bit yet, the trylock_pending() function will fail.

I remember seeing some of this..

> It can be seen that the queue spinlock is slower than the ticket
> spinlock when there are 2 or 3 contending tasks. In all the other case,
> the queue spinlock is either equal or faster than the ticket spinlock.

So with my code I get:

        qspinlock	   ticket

local:  2: 8741.853010     2: 8812.042460
remote: 2: 8549.731795     2: 8709.005695

And that is without this optimization.

Also note that I don't have this cmpxchg loop anymore.

>  kernel/locking/qspinlock.c |   32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> index 55601b4..497da24 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> @@ -216,6 +216,7 @@ xchg_tail(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 tail, u32 *pval)
>  static inline int trylock_pending(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 *pval)
>  {
>  	u32 old, new, val = *pval;
> +	int retry = 1;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * trylock || pending
> @@ -225,11 +226,38 @@ static inline int trylock_pending(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 *pval)
>  	 */
>  	for (;;) {
>  		/*
> -		 * If we observe any contention; queue.
> +		 * If we observe that the queue is not empty,
> +		 * return and be queued.
>  		 */
> -		if (val & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK)
> +		if (val & _Q_TAIL_MASK)
>  			return 0;
>  
> +		if ((val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK) ==
> +		    (_Q_LOCKED_VAL|_Q_PENDING_VAL)) {
> +			/*
> +			 * If both the lock and pending bits are set, we wait
> +			 * a while to see if that either bit will be cleared.
> +			 * If that is no change, we return and be queued.
> +			 */
> +			if (!retry)
> +				return 0;
> +			retry--;
> +			cpu_relax();
> +			cpu_relax();
> +			*pval = val = atomic_read(&lock->val);
> +			continue;

Since you gave up optimizing the _Q_PENDING_BITS != 8 case why bother
with this? The switch from _Q_PENDING_VAL to _Q_LOCKED_VAL is atomic by
virtue of your (endian challenged) clear_pending_set_locked().

> +		} else if ((val & _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK) == _Q_PENDING_VAL) {
> +			/*
> +			 * Pending bit is set, but not the lock bit.
> +			 * Assuming that the pending bit holder is going to
> +			 * set the lock bit and clear the pending bit soon,
> +			 * it is better to wait than to exit at this point.
> +			 */
> +			cpu_relax();
> +			*pval = val = atomic_read(&lock->val);
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +
>  		new = _Q_LOCKED_VAL;
>  		if (val == new)
>  			new |= _Q_PENDING_VAL;

Wouldn't something like:

	while (atomic_read(&lock->val) == _Q_PENDING_VAL)
		cpu_relax();

before the cmpxchg loop have gotten you all this?

I just tried this on my code and I cannot see a difference.
--
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/