linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] adaptive spinning mutexes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4970D3D6.3040906@tmr.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:37:10 -0500
From:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	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>,
	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] adaptive spinning mutexes

Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 10:16 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> btw., i think spin-mutexes have a design advantage here: in a lot of code 
>>> areas it's quite difficult to use spinlocks - cannot allocate memory, 
>>> cannot call any code that can sporadically block (but does not _normally_ 
>>> block), etc.
>>>
>>> With mutexes those atomicity constraints go away - and the performance 
>>> profile should now be quite close to that of spinlocks as well.
>> Umm. Except if you wrote the code nicely and used spinlocks, you wouldn't 
>> hold the lock over all those unnecessary and complex operations.
>>
> 
> While this is true, there are examples of places we should expect
> speedups for this today.
> 
> Concurrent file creation/deletion in a single dir will often find things
> hot in cache and not have to block anywhere (mail spools).
> 
And although not as common, NNTP servers using file per article storage.

> Concurrent O_DIRECT aio writes to the same file, where i_mutex is
> dropped early on.
> 
> pipes should see a huge improvement.
> 
I'd like to see that. Didn't realize how slow pipes really are.

> I'll kick off some runs of my three benchmarks on ext3 for comparison.
> If there are things less synthetic people would like to see, please let
> me know.
> 
> -chris
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 


-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
--
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/