linux-kernel - Re: Performance regression from switching lock to rw-sem for anon-vma tree

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]
Message-ID: <1371486122.1778.14.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:22:02 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
To:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	"Wilcox, Matthew R" <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Performance regression from switching lock to rw-sem for
 anon-vma tree

On Sun, 2013-06-16 at 17:50 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 06/14/2013 07:43 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > I was hoping that the lack of spin on owner was the main difference with
> > rwsems and am/was in the middle of implementing it. Could you send your
> > patch so I can give it a try on my workloads?
> > 
> > Note that there have been a few recent (3.10) changes to mutexes that
> > give a nice performance boost, specially on large systems, most
> > noticeably:
> > 
> > commit 2bd2c92c (mutex: Make more scalable by doing less atomic
> > operations)
> > 
> > commit 0dc8c730 (mutex: Queue mutex spinners with MCS lock to reduce
> > cacheline contention)
> > 
> > It might be worth looking into doing something similar to commit
> > 0dc8c730, in addition to the optimistic spinning.
> 
> It is a good tunning for large machine. I just following what the commit 
> 0dc8c730 done, give a RFC patch here. I tried it on my NHM EP machine. seems no
> clear help on aim7. but maybe it is helpful on large machine.  :)

After a lot of benchmarking, I finally got the ideal results for aim7,
so far: this patch + optimistic spinning with preemption disabled. Just
like optimistic spinning, this patch by itself makes little to no
difference, yet combined is where we actually outperform 3.10-rc5. In
addition, I noticed extra throughput when disabling preemption in
try_optimistic_spin().

With i_mmap as a rwsem and these changes I could see performance
benefits for alltests (+14.5%), custom (+17%), disk (+11%), high_systime
(+5%), shared (+15%) and short (+4%), most of them after around 500
users, for fewer users, it made little to no difference.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

> 
> 
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/rwsem.h b/include/asm-generic/rwsem.h
> index bb1e2cd..240729a 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/rwsem.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/rwsem.h
> @@ -70,11 +70,11 @@ static inline void __down_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  
>  static inline int __down_write_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  {
> -	long tmp;
> +	if (unlikely(&sem->count != RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE))
> +		return 0;
>  
> -	tmp = cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE,
> -		      RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS);
> -	return tmp == RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE;
> +	return cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE,
> +		      RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) == RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE;
>  }
>  
>  /*
> diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
> index 19c5fa9..9e54e20 100644
> --- a/lib/rwsem.c
> +++ b/lib/rwsem.c
> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
>  	struct rwsem_waiter *waiter;
>  	struct task_struct *tsk;
>  	struct list_head *next;
> -	long oldcount, woken, loop, adjustment;
> +	long woken, loop, adjustment;
>  
>  	waiter = list_entry(sem->wait_list.next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
>  	if (waiter->type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE) {
> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
>  			 * will block as they will notice the queued writer.
>  			 */
>  			wake_up_process(waiter->task);
> -		goto out;
> +		return sem;
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Writers might steal the lock before we grant it to the next reader.
> @@ -85,15 +85,28 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
>  	adjustment = 0;
>  	if (wake_type != RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED) {
>  		adjustment = RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
> - try_reader_grant:
> -		oldcount = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem) - adjustment;
> -		if (unlikely(oldcount < RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)) {
> -			/* A writer stole the lock. Undo our reader grant. */
> +		while (1) {
> +			long oldcount;
> +
> +			/* A writer stole the lock. */
> +			if (unlikely(sem->count & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK))
> +				return sem;
> +
> +			if (unlikely(sem->count < RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)) {
> +				cpu_relax();
> +				continue;
> +			}
> +
> +			oldcount = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem)
> +								- adjustment;
> +			if (likely(oldcount >= RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS))
> +				break;
> +
> +			 /* A writer stole the lock.  Undo our reader grant. */
>  			if (rwsem_atomic_update(-adjustment, sem) &
>  						RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)
> -				goto out;
> +				return sem;
>  			/* Last active locker left. Retry waking readers. */
> -			goto try_reader_grant;
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> @@ -136,7 +149,6 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
>  	sem->wait_list.next = next;
>  	next->prev = &sem->wait_list;
>  
> - out:
>  	return sem;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> Thanks
>     Alex
> 
> 


--
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/