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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:24:41 -0700
From:	Joe Eykholt <jeykholt@...co.com>
To:	linux-iscsi-target-dev@...glegroups.com
CC:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	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>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Drop struct Scsi_Host->host_lock around	SHT->queuecommand()



On 9/17/10 9:37 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 10:57 -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
>> 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);
>> }

A tiny trick I like to use is to start a serial number at 1 and
increment by 2 so its always odd and then never wraps to 0.
That eliminates the check for 0 (and the curly brackets).

> The conversion of struct scsi_cmnd->serial_number to atomic_t and the
> above code for scsi_cmd_get_serial() sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> I will take a look at this conversion and respin a complete set of
> patches for review a bit later today.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> --nab
> 
>>
>> 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-scsi" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
--
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/