| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130216090810.GA2904@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:08:10 +0800
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To: mingo@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rwsem-spinlock: let rwsem write lock stealable
Hi Ingo,
Ping...
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 06:59:16PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu 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"
>
> And here is the rwsem-spinlock version.
>
> With this patch, we got a double performance increase in one test box
> with following aim7 workfile:
> FILESIZE: 1M
> POOLSIZE: 10M
> 10 fork_test
>
> some /usr/bin/time output w/o patch some /usr/bin/time_output with patch
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Percent of CPU this job got: 369% Percent of CPU this job got: 537%
> Voluntary context switches: 640595016 Voluntary context switches: 157915561
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You will see we got a 45% increase of CPU usage and saves about 3/4
> voluntary context switches.
>
> Here is the .nr_running filed for all CPUs from /proc/sched_debug.
>
> output w/o this patch:
> ----------------------
> cpu 00: 0 0 ... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 .... 0 0
> cpu 01: 0 0 ... 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 .... 0 0
> cpu 02: 0 0 ... 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 .... 1 1
> cpu 03: 0 0 ... 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 .... 0 0
> cpu 04: 0 1 ... 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 .... 1 0
> cpu 05: 0 1 ... 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 .... 0 0
> cpu 06: 0 0 ... 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 .... 0 0
> cpu 07: 0 0 ... 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 .... 1 0
> cpu 08: 0 0 ... 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 .... 0 1
> cpu 09: 0 0 ... 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 .... 0 1
> cpu 10: 0 0 ... 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 .... 1 2
> cpu 11: 0 0 ... 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 .... 1 2
> cpu 12: 0 0 ... 2 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 .... 1 0
> cpu 13: 0 0 ... 2 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 0 .... 1 1
> cpu 14: 0 0 ... 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 .... 1 0
> cpu 15: 0 0 ... 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 .... 0 0
>
> output with this patch:
> -----------------------
> cpu 00: 0 0 ... 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 .... 1 3
> cpu 01: 0 0 ... 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 .... 1 3
> cpu 02: 0 0 ... 2 2 3 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 .... 1 1
> cpu 03: 0 0 ... 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 .... 1 1
> cpu 04: 0 1 ... 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 .... 1 1
> cpu 05: 0 1 ... 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 .... 1 1
> cpu 06: 0 0 ... 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 .... 2 1
> cpu 07: 0 0 ... 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 .... 2 1
> cpu 08: 0 0 ... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .... 0 0
> cpu 09: 0 0 ... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .... 0 0
> cpu 10: 0 0 ... 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 .... 0 0
> cpu 11: 0 0 ... 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 .... 1 0
> cpu 12: 0 0 ... 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 .... 2 1
> cpu 13: 0 0 ... 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 .... 2 0
> cpu 14: 0 0 ... 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 .... 2 2
> cpu 15: 0 0 ... 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 .... 2 2
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Where you can see that CPU is much busier with this patch.
>
> v2: make it stealable at __down_write_trylock as well, pointed by Michel
>
> Reported-by: LKP project <lkp@...ux.intel.com>
> Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> lib/rwsem-spinlock.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
> 1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c b/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
> index 7e0d6a5..7542afb 100644
> --- a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
> +++ b/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
> @@ -73,20 +73,13 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wakewrite)
> goto dont_wake_writers;
> }
>
> - /* if we are allowed to wake writers try to grant a single write lock
> - * if there's a writer at the front of the queue
> - * - we leave the 'waiting count' incremented to signify potential
> - * contention
> + /*
> + * as we support write lock stealing, we can't set sem->activity
> + * to -1 here to indicate we get the lock. Instead, we wake it up
> + * to let it go get it again.
> */
> if (waiter->flags & RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE) {
> - sem->activity = -1;
> - list_del(&waiter->list);
> - tsk = waiter->task;
> - /* Don't touch waiter after ->task has been NULLed */
> - smp_mb();
> - waiter->task = NULL;
> - wake_up_process(tsk);
> - put_task_struct(tsk);
> + wake_up_process(waiter->task);
> goto out;
> }
>
> @@ -121,18 +114,10 @@ static inline struct rw_semaphore *
> __rwsem_wake_one_writer(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> struct rwsem_waiter *waiter;
> - struct task_struct *tsk;
> -
> - sem->activity = -1;
>
> waiter = list_entry(sem->wait_list.next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
> - list_del(&waiter->list);
> + wake_up_process(waiter->task);
>
> - tsk = waiter->task;
> - smp_mb();
> - waiter->task = NULL;
> - wake_up_process(tsk);
> - put_task_struct(tsk);
> return sem;
> }
>
> @@ -204,7 +189,6 @@ int __down_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>
> /*
> * get a write lock on the semaphore
> - * - we increment the waiting count anyway to indicate an exclusive lock
> */
> void __sched __down_write_nested(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int subclass)
> {
> @@ -214,37 +198,32 @@ void __sched __down_write_nested(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int subclass)
>
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
>
> - if (sem->activity == 0 && list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
> - /* granted */
> - sem->activity = -1;
> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
> - goto out;
> - }
> -
> - tsk = current;
> - set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> -
> /* set up my own style of waitqueue */
> + tsk = current;
> waiter.task = tsk;
> waiter.flags = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE;
> - get_task_struct(tsk);
> -
> list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list);
>
> - /* we don't need to touch the semaphore struct anymore */
> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
> -
> - /* wait to be given the lock */
> + /* wait for someone to release the lock */
> for (;;) {
> - if (!waiter.task)
> + /*
> + * That is the key to support write lock stealing: allows the
> + * task already on CPU to get the lock soon rather than put
> + * itself into sleep and waiting for system woke it or someone
> + * else in the head of the wait list up.
> + */
> + if (sem->activity == 0)
> break;
> - schedule();
> set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
> + schedule();
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
> }
> + /* got the lock */
> + sem->activity = -1;
> + list_del(&waiter.list);
>
> - tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> - out:
> - ;
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
> }
>
> void __sched __down_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> @@ -262,8 +241,8 @@ int __down_write_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
>
> - if (sem->activity == 0 && list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
> - /* granted */
> + if (sem->activity == 0) {
> + /* got the lock */
> sem->activity = -1;
> ret = 1;
> }
> --
> 1.7.7.6
--
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