linux-kernel - Re: RFC: Ideal Adaptive Spinning Conditions

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: <4BB400AA.7090408@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:10:50 -0700
From:	Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
To:	"lkml, " <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@...ell.com>,
	Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Ideal Adaptive Spinning Conditions

CC'ing the right Chris this time.

Darren Hart wrote:
> I'm looking at some adaptive spinning with futexes as a way to help 
> reduce the dependence on sched_yield() to implement userspace spinlocks. 
> Chris, I included you in the CC after reading your comments regarding 
> sched_yield() at kernel summit and I thought you might be interested.
> 
> I have an experimental patchset that implements FUTEX_LOCK and 
> FUTEX_LOCK_ADAPTIVE in the kernel and use something akin to 
> mutex_spin_on_owner() for the first waiter to spin. What I'm finding is 
> that adaptive spinning actually hurts my particular test case, so I was 
> hoping to poll people for context regarding the existing adaptive 
> spinning implementations in the kernel as to where we see benefit. Under 
> which conditions does adaptive spinning help?
> 
> I presume locks with a short average hold time stand to gain the most as 
> the longer the lock is held the more likely the spinner will expire its 
> timeslice or that the scheduling gain becomes noise in the acquisition 
> time. My test case simple calls "lock();unlock()" for a fixed number of 
> iterations and reports the iterations per second at the end of the run. 
> It can run with an arbitrary number of threads as well. I typically run 
> with 256 threads for 10M iterations.
> 
>          futex_lock: Result: 635 Kiter/s
> futex_lock_adaptive: Result: 542 Kiter/s
> 
> I've limited the number of spinners to 1 but feel that perhaps this 
> should be configurable as locks with very short hold times could benefit 
> from up to NR_CPUS-1 spinners.
> 
> I'd really appreciate any data, just general insight, you may have 
> acquired while implementing adaptive spinning for rt-mutexes and 
> mutexes. Open questions for me regarding conditions where adaptive 
> spinning helps are:
> 
> o What type of lock hold times do we expect to benefit?
> o How much contention is a good match for adaptive spinning?
>   - this is related to the number of threads to run in the test
> o How many spinners should be allowed?
> 
> I can share the kernel patches if people are interested, but they are 
> really early, and I'm not sure they are of much value until I better 
> understand the conditions where this is expected to be useful.
> 
> Thanks,
> 


-- 
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team
--
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/