linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] smp_call_function: use rwlocks on queues rather than rcu

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: <84144f020808220006n25d684b1n9db306ddc4f58c4c@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:06:02 +0300
From:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>,
	"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	"Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	"Suresh Siddha" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	"Jens Axboe" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	"Rusty Russell" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
	"Christoph Lameter" <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] smp_call_function: use rwlocks on queues rather than rcu

Hi Ingo,

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>
>> RCU can only control the lifetime of allocated memory blocks, which
>> forces all the call structures to be allocated.  This is expensive
>> compared to allocating them on the stack, which is the common case for
>> synchronous calls.
>>
>> This patch takes a different approach.  Rather than using RCU, the
>> queues are managed under rwlocks.  Adding or removing from the queue
>> requires holding the lock for writing, but multiple CPUs can walk the
>> queues to process function calls under read locks.  In the common
>> case, where the structures are stack allocated, the calling CPU need
>> only wait for its call to be done, take the lock for writing and
>> remove the call structure.
>>
>> Lock contention - particularly write vs read - is reduced by using
>> multiple queues.
>
> hm, is there any authorative data on what is cheaper on a big box, a
> full-blown MESI cache miss that occurs for every reader in this new
> fastpath, or a local SLAB/SLUB allocation+free that occurs with the
> current RCU approach?

Christoph might have an idea about it.
--
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/