| 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: <tip-41ef8f826692c8f65882bec0a8211bd4d1d2d19a@git.kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 04:37:01 -0800
From: tip-bot for Yuanhan Liu <tipbot@...or.com>
To: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, anton@...ba.org, hpa@...or.com,
mingo@...nel.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, alex.shi@...el.com,
yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, walken@...gle.com,
lkp@...ux.intel.com
Subject: [tip:core/locking] rwsem-spinlock:
Implement writer lock-stealing for better scalability
Commit-ID: 41ef8f826692c8f65882bec0a8211bd4d1d2d19a
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/41ef8f826692c8f65882bec0a8211bd4d1d2d19a
Author: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
AuthorDate: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:59:16 +0800
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CommitDate: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:43:39 +0100
rwsem-spinlock: Implement writer lock-stealing for better scalability
We (Linux Kernel Performance project) found a regression
introduced by commit:
5a505085f043 mm/rmap: Convert the struct anon_vma::mutex to an rwsem
which converted all anon_vma::mutex locks rwsem write locks.
The semantics are the same, but the behavioral difference is
quite huge in some cases. After investigating it we found the
root cause: mutexes support lock stealing while rwsems don't.
Here is the link for the detailed regression report:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/29/84
Ingo suggested adding write lock stealing to rwsems:
"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
/usr/bin/time output w/o patch /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
We got a 45% increase in CPU usage and saved about 3/4 voluntary context switches.
Reported-by: LKP project <lkp@...ux.intel.com>
Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: paul.gortmaker@...driver.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1359716356-23865-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
---
lib/rwsem-spinlock.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++----------------------------------
1 file 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;
}
--
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