linux-kernel - Re: [rfc] direct IO submission and completion scalability issues

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: <20080204103001.GA2674@basil.nowhere.org>
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:30:01 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	ak@...e.de, jens.axboe@...cle.com, James.Bottomley@...elEye.com,
	andrea@...e.de, clameter@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	andrew.vasquez@...gic.com, willy@...ux.intel.com,
	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc] direct IO submission and completion scalability issues

> +	q = &__get_cpu_var(call_single_queue);
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> +	list_replace_init(&q->list, &list);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);

I think you could do that lockless if you use a similar data structure
as netchannels (essentially a fixed size single buffer queue with atomic 
exchange of the first/last pointers) and not using a list. That would avoid 
at least one bounce for the lock and likely another one for the  list
manipulation.

Also the right way would be to not add a second mechanism for this,
but fix the standard smp_call_function_single() to support it.

-Andi
--
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/