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: <1270081066.2997.22.camel@hermosa.site>
Date:	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:17:46 -0600
From:	"Peter W. Morreale" <pmorreale@...ell.com>
To:	rostedt@...dmis.org
Cc:	Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>,
	"lkml," <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@...ell.com>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Ideal Adaptive Spinning Conditions

On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:38 -0400, 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.
> 
> > 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.

Right.  This was *critical* for the adaptive rtmutex.   Note in the RT
patch, everybody spins as long as the current owner is on CPU.   

FWIW, IIRC, Solaris has a heuristic approach where incoming tasks spin
for a period of time before going to sleep.  (Cray UINCOS did the same) 

> 
> 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.
> 

nod.  The entire premise was based on the fact that we were converting
spinlocks, which by definition were short held locks.  What I found
during early development was that the sleep/wakeup cycle was more
intrusive for RT than spinning.  

IIRC, I measured something like 380k context switches/second prior to
the adaptive patches for a dbench test and we cut this down to somewhere
around 50k, with a corresponding increase in throughput.  (I can't
remember specific numbers any more, it was a while ago... ;-)

When applied to semaphores, the benefit was in the noise range as I
recall..

(dbench was chosen due to the heavy contention on the dcache spinlock) 


Best,
-PWM


> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> -- Steve
> 
> 


--
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/