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: <4BB40140.20109@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:13:20 -0700
From:	Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
To:	rostedt@...dmis.org
CC:	"lkml," <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 16:21 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> 
>> o What type of lock hold times do we expect to benefit?
> 
> 0 (that's a zero) :-p
> 
> I haven't seen your patches but you are not doing a heuristic approach,
> are you? That is, do not "spin" hoping the lock will suddenly become
> free. I was against that for -rt and I would be against that for futex
> too.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Adaptive spinning is indeed 
hoping the lock will become free while you are spinning and checking 
it's owner...

> 
>> 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.
> 
> Again, I don't know how you implemented your adaptive spinners, but the
> trick to it in -rt was that it would only spin while the owner of the
> lock was actually running. If it was not running, it would sleep. No
> point waiting for a sleeping task to release its lock.

It does exactly this.

> Is this what you did? Because, IIRC, this only benefited spinlocks
> converted to mutexes. It did not help with semaphores, because
> semaphores could be held for a long time. Thus, it was good for short
> held locks, but hurt performance on long held locks.

Trouble is, I'm still seeing performance penalties even on the shortest 
critical section possible (lock();unlock();)

> If userspace is going to do this, I guess the blocked task would need to
> go into kernel, and spin there (with preempt enabled) if the task is
> still active and holding the lock.

It is currently under preempt_disable() just like mutexes. I asked Peter 
why it was done that way for mutexes, but didn't really get an answer. 
He did point out that since we check need_resched() at every iteration 
that we won't run longer than our timeslice anyway, so it shouldn't be a 
  problem.

> Then the application would need to determine which to use. An adaptive
> spinner for short held locks, and a normal futex for long held locks.

Yes, this was intended to be an optional thing (and certainly not the 
default).


-- 
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/