linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] Introduce percpu rw semaphores

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:	Sat, 28 Jul 2012 22:44:12 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	"Alasdair G. Kergon" <agk@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@...hat.com, lwoodman@...hat.com,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Introduce percpu rw semaphores

On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 12:41 -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> Introduce percpu rw semaphores
> 
> When many CPUs are locking a rw semaphore for read concurrently, cache
> line bouncing occurs. When a CPU acquires rw semaphore for read, the
> CPU writes to the cache line holding the semaphore. Consequently, the
> cache line is being moved between CPUs and this slows down semaphore
> acquisition.
> 
> This patch introduces new percpu rw semaphores. They are functionally
> identical to existing rw semaphores, but locking the percpu rw semaphore
> for read is faster and locking for write is slower.
> 
> The percpu rw semaphore is implemented as a percpu array of rw
> semaphores, each semaphore for one CPU. When some thread needs to lock
> the semaphore for read, only semaphore on the current CPU is locked for
> read. When some thread needs to lock the semaphore for write, semaphores
> for all CPUs are locked for write. This avoids cache line bouncing.
> 
> Note that the thread that is locking percpu rw semaphore may be
> rescheduled, it doesn't cause bug, but cache line bouncing occurs in
> this case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>

I am curious to see how this performs with 4096 cpus ?

Really you shouldnt use rwlock in a path if this might hurt performance.

RCU is probably a better answer.

(bdev->bd_block_size should be read exactly once )



--
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/