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: <1305608212.9466.45.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Tue, 17 May 2011 06:56:52 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"cl@...ux.com" <cl@...ux.com>,
	"npiggin@...nel.dk" <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [patch V3] percpu_counter: scalability works

Le mardi 17 mai 2011 à 08:55 +0800, Shaohua Li a écrit :

> I'm still interesting in improving percpu_counter itself. If we can
> improve it, why we don't? My patch doesn't slow down anything for all
> tests. Why didn't you ever look at it?
> 

I did and said there were obvious problems in it.

1) 4096 cpus : size of one percpu_counter is 16Kbytes.

After your last patch -> 20 kbytes for no good reason.

2) Two separate alloc_percpu() -> two separate cache lines instead of
one.

But then, if one alloc_percpu() -> 32 kbytes per object.

3) Focus on percpu_counter() implementation instead of making an
analysis of callers.

I did a lot of rwlocks removal in network stack because they are not the
right synchronization primitive in many cases. I did not optimize
rwlocks. If rwlocks were even slower, I suspect other people would have
help me to convert things faster.

4) There is a possible way to solve your deviation case : add at _add()
beginning a short cut for crazy 'amount' values. Its a bit expensive on
32bit arches, so might be added in a new helper to let _add() be fast
for normal and gentle users.

if (unlikely(amount >= batch || amount <= -batch)) {
	atomic64(amount, &fbc->count);
	return;
}

Ie dont care to get the s32 value and change it to 0, just leave it
alone.

Thanks

------------------------------------------------------------------

About making percpu s32 'atomic', here is the patch to show the idea:

Each time we call __percpu_counter_sum(), fbc->counters[] values are
zeroed and fbc->count is the "precise" value of the counter. (deviation
comes close to 0)

So if we need to dynamically change one percpu counter batch value, we
can call __percpu_counter_sum() to minimize the 'deviation' close to 0,
no need to send an IPI to all cpus so that they perform the transfert
themselves.

1) vm_committed_as could use a big vm_committed_as_batch when
(sysctl_overcommit_memory == OVERCOMMIT_ALWAYS or OVERCOMMIT_GUESS)

2) We could switch vm_committed_as_batch to an adequate value if/when
sysctl_overcommit_memory is changed to OVERCOMMIT_NEVER (and redo the
batch computation is swap space is changed as well, or hugepages
reservations, or number of online cpus, or ...)

Note: this has a cost, because percpu_counter() fast path would have one
atomic operation instead of 0 in current implementation (cmpxchg() on
the percpu s32). Not sure current cpus would care for percpu data (no
contention)

 include/linux/percpu_counter.h |    7 +---
 lib/percpu_counter.c           |   51 +++++++++++++++----------------
 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/percpu_counter.h b/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
index 46f6ba5..d6b7831 100644
--- a/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
+++ b/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
@@ -16,8 +16,7 @@
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 
 struct percpu_counter {
-	spinlock_t lock;
-	s64 count;
+	atomic64_t count;
 #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
 	struct list_head list;	/* All percpu_counters are on a list */
 #endif
@@ -60,7 +59,7 @@ static inline s64 percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
 
 static inline s64 percpu_counter_read(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
 {
-	return fbc->count;
+	return atomic64_read(&fbc->count);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -70,7 +69,7 @@ static inline s64 percpu_counter_read(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
  */
 static inline s64 percpu_counter_read_positive(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
 {
-	s64 ret = fbc->count;
+	s64 ret = percpu_counter_read(fbc);
 
 	barrier();		/* Prevent reloads of fbc->count */
 	if (ret >= 0)
diff --git a/lib/percpu_counter.c b/lib/percpu_counter.c
index 28f2c33..745787e 100644
--- a/lib/percpu_counter.c
+++ b/lib/percpu_counter.c
@@ -59,29 +59,36 @@ void percpu_counter_set(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount)
 {
 	int cpu;
 
-	spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
 		s32 *pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
 		*pcount = 0;
 	}
-	fbc->count = amount;
-	spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
+	atomic64_set(&fbc->count, amount);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(percpu_counter_set);
 
 void __percpu_counter_add(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount, s32 batch)
 {
 	s64 count;
+	s32 *ptr, old;
+
+	if (unlikely(amount >= batch || amount <= -batch)) {
+		atomic64_add(amount, &fbc->count);
+		return;
+	}
 
 	preempt_disable();
-	count = __this_cpu_read(*fbc->counters) + amount;
+	ptr = this_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters);
+retry:
+	old = *ptr;
+	count = old + amount;
 	if (count >= batch || count <= -batch) {
-		spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
-		fbc->count += count;
-		__this_cpu_write(*fbc->counters, 0);
-		spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
+		if (unlikely(cmpxchg(ptr, old, 0) != old))
+			goto retry;
+		atomic64_add(count, &fbc->count);
 	} else {
-		__this_cpu_write(*fbc->counters, count);
+		if (unlikely(cmpxchg(ptr, old, count) != old))
+			goto retry;
 	}
 	preempt_enable();
 }
@@ -93,26 +100,23 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__percpu_counter_add);
  */
 s64 __percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
 {
-	s64 ret;
 	int cpu;
 
-	spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
-	ret = fbc->count;
 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
-		s32 *pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
-		ret += *pcount;
+		s32 count, *pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
+
+		count = xchg(pcount, 0);
+		if (count)
+			atomic64_add(count, &fbc->count);
 	}
-	spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
-	return ret;
+	return atomic64_read(&fbc->count);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(__percpu_counter_sum);
 
 int __percpu_counter_init(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount,
 			  struct lock_class_key *key)
 {
-	spin_lock_init(&fbc->lock);
-	lockdep_set_class(&fbc->lock, key);
-	fbc->count = amount;
+	atomic64_set(&fbc->count, amount);
 	fbc->counters = alloc_percpu(s32);
 	if (!fbc->counters)
 		return -ENOMEM;
@@ -170,14 +174,11 @@ static int __cpuinit percpu_counter_hotcpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
 	cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
 	mutex_lock(&percpu_counters_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry(fbc, &percpu_counters, list) {
-		s32 *pcount;
-		unsigned long flags;
+		s32 count, *pcount;
 
-		spin_lock_irqsave(&fbc->lock, flags);
 		pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
-		fbc->count += *pcount;
-		*pcount = 0;
-		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fbc->lock, flags);
+		count = xchg(pcount, 0);
+		atomic64_add(count, &fbc->count);
 	}
 	mutex_unlock(&percpu_counters_lock);
 #endif


--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ