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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:24:15 -0700
From:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
Cc:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.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 Wed, 2013-06-19 at 16:11 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 17:08 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 16:35 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 07:20 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> > > > On 06/18/2013 12:22 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > > 
> > > > A pretty good number. what's the cpu number in your machine? :)
> > > 
> > > 8-socket, 80 cores (ht off)
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > David,
> > 
> > I wonder if you are interested to try the experimental patch below.  
> > It tries to avoid unnecessary writes to the sem->count when we are 
> > going to fail the down_write by executing rwsem_down_write_failed_s
> > instead of rwsem_down_write_failed.  It should further reduce the
> > cache line bouncing.  It didn't make a difference for my 
> > workload.  Wonder if it may help yours more in addition to the 
> > other two patches.  Right now the patch is an ugly hack.  I'll merge
> > rwsem_down_write_failed_s and rwsem_down_write_failed into one
> > function if this approach actually helps things.
> > 
> 
> I tried this on top of the patches we've already been dealing with. It
> actually did more harm than good. Only got a slight increase in the
> five_sec workload, for the rest either no effect, or negative. So far
> the best results are still with spin on owner + preempt disable + Alex's
> patches.
> 

Thanks for trying it out. A little disappointed as I was expecting no
change in performance for the worst case.

Tim

--
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/