linux-kernel - Re: [ANN] Userspace M-on-N threading model implementation. Alpha release.

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702041438180.18633@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date:	Sun, 4 Feb 2007 14:52:08 -0800 (PST)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
cc:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ANN] Userspace M-on-N threading model implementation. Alpha
 release.

On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 03:12:32PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > >>Because user threading can avoid context switches, there will always be 
> > >>cases where it will outperform o/s threads for hardware reasons.
> > >
> > >actually.. switching from one "real" thread to another in Linux is not
> > >an actual context switch in the hardware sense... at least this part of
> > >your argument seems to be incorrect ;)
> > >
> > How does that work? Switching between kernel threads requires going into 
> > the kernel, user level thread switches are all done in user mode.
> > 
> > Do you have some way to change o/s threads w/o going into the kernel?
> 
> But going into kernel is not very expensive on Linux.
> 
> On the other side, the overhead you need to add for every single syscall
> that might block for the M:N threads and the associated complications
> which make it far harder to conform to POSIX IMHO far outweight the costs
> of going into the kernel for a context switch.

Agreed, definitely. A libpcl (using swapcontext(3)) cobench is about 50 
times faster than an context switch measured by lmbench (although I have 
serious doubts about about the ability of lat_ctx to measure it - but 
that's another story) on an Opteron 254. One may say "Wow! Really?!?".
The point is, who cares. We are talking about differences between 
super-fast (~2us) and ultra-fast (~0.04us).
The time (and code) that you'll have to drop in the syscall path to handle 
M:N is very likely to make you lose way more of what you gain by avoiding 
an OS context switch (a "soft" context switch you still have to do it).
Either use N:N (requires locking, but spread over multiple CPUs) or 1:N 
(I/O driven state machines or coroutines - no locking, once-CPU bound).

- Davide

-
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/