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]

Date:	Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:12:45 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	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

On Friday 22 August 2008 17:12, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> ... thought of that missing Cc: line entry exactly 1.3 seconds after
> having sent the mail :)
>
> Christoph, any preferences/suggestions?

I think it's just going to be a matter of benchmarking it and seeing.
And small/medium systems are probably more important than huge ones
unless there is a pathological scalability problem with one of the
approaches (which there probably isn't seeing as there is already
locking there).
--
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/