linux-kernel - Scalability requirements for sysv ipc (was: ipc: store ipcs into IDRs)

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47E382DB.70503@colorfullife.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:41:47 +0100
From:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Scalability requirements for sysv ipc (was: ipc: store ipcs into
 IDRs)

Hi all,

I noticed that sysv ipc now uses very special locking: first a global 
rw-semaphore, then within that semaphore rcu:
 > linux-2.6.25-rc3:/ipc/util.c:
> struct kern_ipc_perm *ipc_lock(struct ipc_ids *ids, int id)
> {
>         struct kern_ipc_perm *out;
>         int lid = ipcid_to_idx(id);
>
>         down_read(&ids->rw_mutex);
>
>         rcu_read_lock();
>         out = idr_find(&ids->ipcs_idr, lid);
ids->rw_mutex is a per-namespace (i.e.: usually global) semaphore. Thus 
ipc_lock writes into a global cacheline. Everything else is based on 
per-object locking, especially sysv sem doesn't contain a single global 
lock/statistic counter/...
That can't be the Right Thing (tm): Either there are cases where we need 
the scalability (then using IDRs is impossible), or the scalability is 
never needed (then the remaining parts from RCU should be removed).
I don't have a suitable test setup, has anyone performed benchmarks 
recently?
Is sysv semaphore still important, or have all apps moved to posix 
semaphores/futexes?
Nadia: Do you have access to a suitable benchmark?

A microbenchmark on a single-cpu system doesn't help much (except that 
2.6.25 is around factor 2 slower for sysv msg ping-pong between two 
tasks compared to the numbers I remember from older kernels....)

--
    Manfred
--
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/