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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 3 Jan 2013 04:48:22 -0800
From:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aquini@...hat.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, lwoodman@...hat.com, jeremy@...p.org,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, knoel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] x86,smp: keep spinlock delay values per hashed
 spinlock address

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>
> Eric Dumazet found a regression with the spinlock backoff code,
> in workloads where multiple spinlocks were contended, each having
> a different wait time.

I think you should really clarify that the regression was observed
with version 1 of your proposal. At that time,

1- the autotune code tended to use too long delays for long held locks, and

2- there was no exponential backoff, which meant that sharing stats
between a long held and a short held spinlock could really hurt
throughput on the short held spinlock


I believe that with autotune v2, this really shouldnt be a problem and
stats sharing should result in just using a delay that's appropriate
for the shorter of the two lock hold times - which is not the optimal
value, but is actually close enough performance wise and, most
importantly, should not cause any regression when compared to current
mainline.

(it's important to point that out because otherwise, you might trick
Linus into thinking your patches are risky, which I think they
shouldn't be after you implemented exponential backoff)

>  void ticket_spin_lock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock, struct __raw_tickets inc)
>  {
>         __ticket_t head = inc.head, ticket = inc.tail;
>         __ticket_t waiters_ahead;
> -       int delay = __this_cpu_read(spinlock_delay);
> +       u32 hash = hash32_ptr(lock);
> +       u32 slot = hash_32(hash, DELAY_HASH_SHIFT);
> +       struct delay_entry *ent = &__get_cpu_var(spinlock_delay[slot]);
> +       u32 delay = (ent->hash == hash) ? ent->delay : MIN_SPINLOCK_DELAY;

IMO we want to avoid MIN_SPINLOCK_DELAY here. The exponential backoff
autotune should make us resilient to collisions (if they happen we'll
just end up with something very close to the min of the delays that
would have been appropriate for either locks), so it should be better
to just let collisions happen rather than force the use of
MIN_SPINLOCK_DELAY.

-- 
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
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