linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 0/6][RFC] futex: FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptive spinning

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: <4BBBA610.3090200@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:22:24 -0700
From:	Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"Peter W. Morreale" <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@...ell.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	John Cooper <john.cooper@...rd-harmonic.com>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/6][RFC] futex: FUTEX_LOCK with optional adaptive
 spinning

Darren Hart wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
> 
>>> > At 10%
>>>> duty cycle you have 25 waiters behind the lock on average.  I don't 
>>>> think this is realistic, and it means that spinning is invoked only 
>>>> rarely.
>>>
>>> Perhaps some instrumentation is in order, it seems to get invoked 
>>> enough to achieve some 20% increase in lock/unlock iterations. 
>>> Perhaps another metric would be of more value - such as average wait 
>>> time?
>>
>> Why measure an unrealistic workload?
> 
> No argument there, thus my proposal for an alternate configuration below.
> 
>>>> I'd be interested in seeing runs where the average number of waiters 
>>>> is 0.2, 0.5, 1, and 2, corresponding to moderate-to-bad contention.
>>>> 25 average waiters on compute bound code means the application needs 
>>>> to be rewritten, no amount of mutex tweaking will help it.
>>>
>>> Perhaps something NR_CPUS threads would be of more interest? 
>>
>> That seems artificial.
> 
> How so? Several real world applications use one thread per CPU to 
> dispatch work to, wait for events, etc.
> 
>>
>>> At 10% that's about .8 and at 25% the 2 of your upper limit. I could 
>>> add a few more duty-cycle points and make 25% the max. I'll kick that 
>>> off and post the results... probably tomorrow, 10M iterations takes a 
>>> while, but makes the results relatively stable.
>>
>> Thanks.  But why not vary the number of threads as well?
> 
> Absolutely, I don't disagree that all the variables should vary in order 
> to get a complete picture. I'm starting with 8 - it takes several hours 
> to collect the data.

While this might be of less interest after today's discussion, I 
promised to share the results of a run with 8 threads with a wider 
selection of lower duty-cycles. The results are very poor for adaptive 
and worse for aas (multiple spinners) compared to normal FUTEX_LOCK. As 
Thomas and Peter have pointed out, the implementation is sub-optimal. 
Before abandoning this approach I will see if I can find the bottlenecks 
and simplify the kernel side of things. My impression is that I am doing 
a lot more work in the kernel, especially in the adaptive loop, than is 
really necessary.

Both the 8 and 256 Thread plots can be viewed here:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/dvhart/adaptive_futex/v4/

-- 
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/