linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1231513910.21333.19.camel@think.oraclecorp.com>
Date:	Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:11:50 -0500
From:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
	Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 16:06 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 11:47 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > So I think the bug is still there, we just hid it better by breaking out 
> > > of the loop with that "if (need_resched())" always eventually triggering. 
> > > And it would be ok if it really is guaranteed to _eventually_ trigger, and 
> > > I guess with timeslices it eventually always will, but I suspect we could 
> > > have some serious latency spikes.
> > 
> > Yes, the owner getting preempted after acquiring the lock, but before
> > setting the owner can give some nasties :-(
> > 
> > I initially did that preempt_disable/enable around the fast path, but I
> > agree that slowing down the fast path is unwelcome.
> > 
> > Alternatively we could go back to block on !owner, with the added
> > complexity of not breaking out of the spin on lock->owner != owner
> > when !lock->owner, so that the premature owner clearing of the unlock
> > fast path will not force a schedule right before we get a chance to
> > acquire the lock.
> > 
> > Let me do that..
> 
> Ok a few observations..
> 
> Adding that need_resched() in the outer loop utterly destroys the
> performance gain for PREEMPT=y. Voluntary preemption is mostly good, but
> somewhat unstable results.

How about if (!owner && need_resched()) break; instead of the
unconditional need_resched().  That should solve the race that Linus saw
without and hurt PREEMPT less.

> 
> Adding that blocking on !owner utterly destroys everything.
> 
> Going to look into where that extra preemption comes from.

-chris


--
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/