linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Drop struct Scsi_Host->host

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1284735438.26423.81.camel@mulgrave.site>
Date:	Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:57:18 -0400
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vasu Dev <vasu.dev@...ux.intel.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
	James Smart <james.smart@...lex.com>,
	Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@...gic.com>,
	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
	Joe Eykholt <jeykholt@...co.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Drop struct Scsi_Host->host_lock around
 SHT->queuecommand()

On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 16:22 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I don't disagree with the idea of removing it, especially as it has so
> > few users, but replacing the host lock with an atomic here would still
> > vastly reduce the contention, which is the initial complaint.  The
> 
> Actually the complaint is the overhead of the spin lock. This can be 
> either caused
> by contention or by cache line bounce time.

The original complaint was contention.  My desire is to reduce the
locked path coverage, so I saw an opportunity.

What I was actually thinking of for the atomic is that we'd let it range
[1..INT_MAX] so a zero was an indicator of no use of this.  Then the
actual code could become

if (atomic_read(x)) {
	do {
		y = atomic_add_return(1, x);
	} while (y == 0);
}

So "fast" cards not using the serial number set a zero there (we'd
default initialise to one), the line is shared so no bouncing (because
it's never updated).  This should satisfy everyone.

> > contention occurs because the host lock is so widely used for other
> > things.  The way to reduce that contention is firstly to reduce the
> > length of code covered by the lock and also reduce the actual number of
> > places where the lock is taken.  Compared with host lock's current vast
> > footprint, and atomic here is tiny.
> 
> That assumes that it's contention that is the problem and not simply 
> bounce time.

That's what the patch and data that started this whole thread showed,
yes ... but I think actual bounce in the spinlock is also a problem ...
we just don't have data to show it.

James


--
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/