linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] Makes procs file writable to move all threads by tgid at once

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: <6599ad830908060424r72e1aa12g2b246785e7bc039c@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 Aug 2009 04:24:25 -0700
From:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Benjamin Blum <bblum@...gle.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	paulmck <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, oleg <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] Makes procs file writable to move all threads by tgid 
	at once

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra<a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>
> Taking that many locks in general, some apps (JVM based usually) tend to
> be thread heavy and can easily have hundreds of them, even on relatively

Oh, I'm well aware that apps can be heavily multi-threaded - we have
much worse cases at Google.

>
> Now that's not real nice is it ;-)

Not particularly - but who exactly is going to be moving processes
with thousands of threads between cgroups on a lockdep-enabled debug
kernel?

>
>> But given that AFAICS we can eliminate the overhead associated with a
>> single lock by piggy-backing on the cache line containing
>> sighand->count, hopefully this won't be an issue any more.
>
> Right, so this is a write rarely, read frequently thing, which suggests
> an RCU like approach where the readers pay a minimum synchronization
> penalty.

The documentation for SRCU mentions:

        Therefore, SRCU should be used in preference to rw_semaphore
        only in extremely read-intensive situations, or in situations
        requiring SRCU's read-side deadlock immunity or low read-side
        realtime latency.

What benefits does the additional complexity of SRCU give, over the
simple solution of putting an rwsem in the same cache line as
sighand->count ?

Paul
--
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/