linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rwsem-spinlock: let rwsem write lock stealable

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]

Message-ID: <20130131124004.GA12678@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:40:04 +0800
From:	Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rwsem-spinlock: let rwsem write lock stealable

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 03:57:51AM -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Yuanhan Liu
> <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > We(Linux Kernel Performance project) found a regression introduced by
> > commit 5a50508, which just convert all mutex lock to rwsem write lock.
> > The semantics is same, but the results is quite huge in some cases.
> > After investigation, we found the root cause: mutex support lock
> > stealing. Here is the link for the detailed regression report:
> >     https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/29/84
> >
> > Ingo suggests to add write lock stealing to rwsem as well:
> >     "I think we should allow lock-steal between rwsem writers - that
> >      will not hurt fairness as most rwsem fairness concerns relate to
> >      reader vs. writer fairness"
> >
> > I then tried it with rwsem-spinlock first as I found it much easier to
> > implement it than lib/rwsem.c. And here I sent out this patch first for
> > comments. I'd try lib/rwsem.c later once the change to rwsem-spinlock
> > is OK to you guys.
> 
> I noticed that you haven't modified __down_write_trylock() - for
> consistency with __down_write() you should replace
>         if (sem->activity == 0 && list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
> with
>         if (sem->activity == 0) {

Yes, my bad for missing that. Thanks a lot for pointing it out. Will fix it.
> 
> Other than that, I like the idea. I was originally uncomfortable with
> doing lock stealing for the rwsem, but I think doing it for writers
> only as you propose should be fine. Readers wait for any queued
> writers, and in exchange they are guaranteed to get the lock once
> they've blocked.

> You *still* want to check for regressions that this
> change might cause - not with anon_vma as this was a mutex not long
> ago, but possibly with mmap_sem

Yes. Well, at least it passed Fengguang's 0-DAY test, which did lots
of tests on almost all ARCHs. Well, you reminds me that I just enabled
RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK for x86 ARCH, thus I need to enable
RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK to all ARCHs and do test again.

BTW, mind to tell a nice test case for mmap_sem?

> - but I'm crossing my fingers and
> thinking that it'll most likely turn out fine.

Thanks!

> 
> I may be able to help with the non-spinlock version of this as I still
> remember how this works.

That would be great! Especially I will have vacation soon for Chinese
New Year.


	--yliu
--
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/