linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] procfs: Improve Scaling in proc

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: <1350546398.26103.1133.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:46:38 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] procfs: Improve Scaling in proc

On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 15:25 -0500, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> I am currently tracking a hotlock reported by a customer on a large, 512 cores,
> system, I am currently running 3.7.0 rc1 but the issue looks like it has been
> this way for a very long time.
> The offending lock is proc_dir_entry->pde_unload_lock.
> 
> This patch converts the replaces the lock with the rcu. It is a refresh of what
> was orignally suggested by Eric Dumazet.  I refreshed it to the 3.7.
> 
> Supporting numbers, lower is better, they are from the test I posted earlier.
> cpuinfo baseline        Rcu
> tasks   read-sec        read-sec
> 1       0.0141          0.0141
> 2       0.0140          0.0142
> 4       0.0140          0.0141
> 8       0.0145          0.0140
> 16      0.0553          0.0168
> 32      0.1688          0.0549
> 64      0.5017          0.1690
> 128     1.7005          0.5038
> 256     5.2513          2.0804
> 512     8.0529          3.0162
> 
> 
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>


Hmm, this patch had several issues and I had no time yet to work on a
new version. I probably wont have time in a near future.

Paul sent me some comments about it, I hope he doesnt mind I copy them
here, if you want to polish the patch.

Thanks !

On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 10:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: 
> Finally getting back to this...  :-/
> 
> Why not set the initial value of the reference counter to 1
> (rather than zero), continue acquiring with atomic_inc(), but
> use atomic_dec_and_test() to decrement?  Put a completion in
> the data structure, so if the atomic_dec_and_test() indicates that
> the counter is now zero, do a complete().
> 
> Then to free the object, remove it from the data structure, do a
> synchronize_rcu(), do an atomic_dec_and_test() to remove the initial
> value, again doing a complete() if the counter is now zero.  The do
> a wait_for_completion().
> 
> This would get rid of the polling loop.
> 
> So, what am I missing here?  ;-)
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 

--
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/