linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] tracing: Don't call wakeup() when committing the event

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: <20110503220948.GE2678@nowhere>
Date:	Wed, 4 May 2011 00:09:51 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@...gle.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
	David Sharp <dhsharp@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tracing: Don't call wakeup() when committing the
 event

On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 02:56:11PM -0700, Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 02:03:36PM -0700, Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
> >> In using syscall tracing by concurrent processes, the wakeup() that is
> >> called in the event commit function causes contention on the spin lock
> >> of the waitqueue. I enabled sys_enter_getuid and sys_exit_getuid
> >> tracepoints, and by running getuid_microbench from autotest in parallel
> >> I found that the contention causes exponential latency increase in the
> >> tracing path.
> >>
> >> The autotest binary getuid_microbench calls getuid() in a tight loop for
> >> the given number of iterations and measures the average time required to
> >> complete a single invocation of syscall.
> >>
> >> The patch here points to the problem and provides a naive solution to
> >> start the discussion. It is not intended to be a definitive solution.
> >
> > Right, so another solution could be to have per cpu waitqueues for
> > the per_cpu trace_pipe/trace_pipe_raw files, and one big for the main
> > trace_pipe file.
> 
> That could be another way. But if there is still *one* common waitqueue for
> the main trace file, we are still going to get contention on waking up that
> common waitqueue.
> 
> Unless I am missing something, can you explain why there won't be contention
> in your suggested solution?

Ah right, I missed that.

I wonder if we should have a lite version of wake_up() that checks
if the list of waiters is empty before locking the queue.
After all we don't care much about tight races for tracing.

Hm?
--
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/