linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] locking/rwsem: check for active writer/spinner before wakeup

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, 04 Aug 2014 14:20:17 -0700
From:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] locking/rwsem: check for active writer/spinner
 before wakeup

On Sun, 2014-08-03 at 22:36 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On a highly contended rwsem, spinlock contention due to the slow
> rwsem_wake() call can be a significant portion of the total CPU cycles
> used. With writer lock stealing and writer optimistic spinning, there
> is also a pretty good chance that the lock may have been stolen
> before the waker wakes up the waiters. The woken tasks, if any,
> will have to go back to sleep again.
> 
> This patch adds checking code at the beginning of the rwsem_wake()
> and __rwsem_do_wake() function to look for spinner and active
> writer respectively.  The presence of an active writer will abort the
> wakeup operation.  The presence of a spinner will still allow wakeup
> operation to proceed as long as the trylock operation succeeds. This
> strikes a good balance between excessive spinlock contention especially
> when there are a lot of active readers and a lot of failed fastpath
> operations because there are tasks waiting in the queue.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
> ---
>  include/linux/osq_lock.h    |    5 ++++
>  kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c |   57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/osq_lock.h b/include/linux/osq_lock.h
> index 90230d5..79db546 100644
> --- a/include/linux/osq_lock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/osq_lock.h
> @@ -24,4 +24,9 @@ static inline void osq_lock_init(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
>  	atomic_set(&lock->tail, OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL);
>  }
>  
> +static inline bool osq_has_spinner(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
> +{
> +	return atomic_read(&lock->tail) != OSQ_UNLOCKED_VAL;
> +}

Like with other locks, should we make this "osq_is_locked"? We can still
add the rwsem has_spinner() abstractions which makes use of
osq_is_locked() if we want.


--
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/