linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SLUB use cmpxchg

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: <1188197539.6114.426.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:52:19 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLUB use cmpxchg_local

On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 16:14 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> 
> > - Changed smp_rmb() for barrier(). We are not interested in read order
> >   across cpus, what we want is to be ordered wrt local interrupts only.
> >   barrier() is much cheaper than a rmb().
> 
> But this means a preempt disable is required. RT users do not want that.
> Without preemption the processor can be moved after c has been determined.
> That is why the smp_rmb() is there.

Likewise for disabling interrupts, we don't like that either. So
anything that requires cpu-pinning is preferably not done.

That said, we can suffer a preempt-off section if its O(1) and only a
few hundred cycles.

The trouble with all this percpu data in slub is that it also requires
pinning to the cpu in much of the slow path, either that or what we've
been doing so far with slab, a lock per cpu, and just grab one of those
locks and stick to the data belonging to that lock, regardless of
whether we get migrated.

slab-rt has these locks for all allocations and they are a massive
bottleneck for quite a few workloads, getting a fast path allocation
without using these would be most welcome.

So, if the fast path can be done with a preempt off, it might be doable
to suffer the slow path with a per cpu lock like that.

-
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/