linux-kernel - Re: [rfc][patch] queued spinlocks (i386)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:40:17 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] queued spinlocks (i386)

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:59:11 +0100
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:

> 
> Implement queued spinlocks for i386. This shouldn't increase the size of
> the spinlock structure, while still able to handle 2^16 CPUs.
> 
> Not completely implemented with assembly yet, to make the algorithm a bit
> clearer.
> 
> The queued spinlock has 2 fields, a head and a tail, which are indexes
> into a FIFO of waiting CPUs. To take a spinlock, a CPU performs an
> "atomic_inc_return" on the head index, and keeps the returned value as
> a ticket. The CPU then spins until the tail index is equal to that
> ticket.
> 
> To unlock a spinlock, the tail index is incremented (this can be non
> atomic, because only the lock owner will modify tail).
> 
> Implementation inefficiencies aside, this change should have little
> effect on performance for uncontended locks, but will have quite a
> large cost for highly contended locks [O(N) cacheline transfers vs
> O(1) per lock aquisition, where N is the number of CPUs contending].
> The benefit is is that contended locks will not cause any starvation.
> 
> Just an idea. Big NUMA hardware seems to have fairness logic that
> prevents starvation for the regular spinlock logic. But it might be
> interesting for -rt kernel or systems with starvation issues. 

It's a very nice idea Nick.

You also have for free the number or cpus that are before you.

On big SMP/NUMA, we could use this information to call a special lock_cpu_relax() function to avoid cacheline transferts.

	asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "xaddw %0, %1\n\t"
		     : "+r" (pos), "+m" (lock->qhead) : : "memory");
	for (;;) {
		unsigned short nwait = pos - lock->qtail;
		if (likely(nwait == 0))
			break;
		lock_cpu_relax(lock, nwait);
	}

lock_cpu_relax(raw_spinlock_t *lock, unsigned int nwait)
{
unsigned int cycles = nwait * lock->min_cycles_per_round;
busy_loop(cycles);
}
-
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/