linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] brw_mutex: big read-write mutex

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, 26 Oct 2012 10:40:48 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] brw_mutex: big read-write mutex

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:09:31AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 06:54:41PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > Yes, I tried this approach - it involves doing LOCK instruction on read 
> > > > > lock, remembering the cpu and doing another LOCK instruction on read 
> > > > > unlock (which will hopefully be on the same CPU, so no cacheline bouncing 
> > > > > happens in the common case). It was slower than the approach without any 
> > > > > LOCK instructions (43.3 seconds seconds for the implementation with 
> > > > > per-cpu LOCKed access, 42.7 seconds for this implementation without atomic 
> > > > > instruction; the benchmark involved doing 512-byte direct-io reads and 
> > > > > writes on a ramdisk with 8 processes on 8-core machine).
> > > > 
> > > > So why is that a problem? Surely that's already tons better then what
> > > > you've currently got.
> > > 
> > > Percpu rw-semaphores do not improve performance at all. I put them there 
> > > to avoid performance regression, not to improve performance.
> > > 
> > > All Linux kernels have a race condition - when you change block size of a 
> > > block device and you read or write the device at the same time, a crash 
> > > may happen. This bug is there since ever. Recently, this bug started to 
> > > cause major trouble - multiple high profile business sites report crashes 
> > > because of this race condition.
> > >
> > > You can fix this race by using a read lock around I/O paths and write lock 
> > > around block size changing, but normal rw semaphore cause cache line 
> > > bouncing when taken for read by multiple processors and I/O performance 
> > > degradation because of it is measurable.
> > 
> > This doesn't sound like a new problem.  Hasn't this global access,
> > single modifier exclusion problem been solved before in the VFS?
> > e.g. mnt_want_write()/mnt_make_readonly()
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Dave.
> 
> Yes, mnt_want_write()/mnt_make_readonly() do the same thing as percpu rw 
> semaphores. I think you can convert mnt_want_write()/mnt_make_readonly() 
> to use percpu rw semaphores and remove the duplicated code.

I think you misunderstood my point - that rather than re-inventing
the wheel, why didn't you just copy something that is known to
work?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/