| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:11:16 -0700
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rwsem: do optimistic spinning for writer lock
acquisition
On Sun, 2013-06-23 at 13:03 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-06-22 at 03:57 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > On 06/21/2013 07:51 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> > > Introduce in this patch optimistic spinning for writer lock
> > > acquisition in read write semaphore. The logic is
> > > similar to the optimistic spinning in mutex but without
> > > the MCS lock queueing of the spinner. This provides a
> > > better chance for a writer to acquire the lock before
> > > being we block it and put it to sleep.
> >
> > This is just my opinion but I'd rather read the justification
> > here instead of referencing mutex logic that may or may not
> > exist in 2 years.
>
> We want to add optimistic spinning to rwsems because we've noticed that
> the writer rwsem does not perform as well as mutexes. Tim noticed that
> for exim (mail server) workloads, when reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 and I
> noticed it when converting the i_mmap_mutex to a rwsem in some aim7
> workloads. We've noticed that the biggest difference, in a nutshell, is
> when we fail to acquire a mutex in the fastpath, optimistic spinning
> comes in to play and we can avoid a large amount of unnecessary sleeping
> and wait queue overhead.
>
> For rwsems on the other hand, upon entering the writer slowpath in
> rwsem_down_write_failed(), we just acquire the ->wait_lock, add
> ourselves to the wait_queue and blocking until we get the lock.
>
> Makes sense?
>
> More information from the original thread:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/21/482
Sounds good.
>
> >
> >
> > > Disabling of pre-emption during optimistic spinning
> > > was suggested by Davidlohr Bueso. It
> > > improved performance of aim7 for his test suite.
> > >
> > > Combined with the patch to avoid unnecesary cmpxchg,
> > > in testing by Davidlohr Bueso on aim7 workloads
> > > on 8 socket 80 cores system, he saw improvements of
> > > alltests (+14.5%), custom (+17%), disk (+11%), high_systime
> > > (+5%), shared (+15%) and short (+4%), most of them after around 500
> > > users when he implemented i_mmap as rwsem.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > Makefile | 2 +-
> > > include/linux/rwsem.h | 3 +
> > > init/Kconfig | 9 +++
> > > kernel/rwsem.c | 29 +++++++++-
> > > lib/rwsem.c | 148 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > 5 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > > index 49aa84b..7d1ef64 100644
> > > --- a/Makefile
> > > +++ b/Makefile
> > > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> > > VERSION = 3
> > > PATCHLEVEL = 10
> > > SUBLEVEL = 0
> > > -EXTRAVERSION = -rc4
> > > +EXTRAVERSION = -rc4-optspin4
> > > NAME = Unicycling Gorilla
>
> This must obviously go.
Yes. Should not be there.
>
> > >
> > > # *DOCUMENTATION*
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/rwsem.h b/include/linux/rwsem.h
> > > index 0616ffe..0c5933b 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/rwsem.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/rwsem.h
> > > @@ -29,6 +29,9 @@ struct rw_semaphore {
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> > > struct lockdep_map dep_map;
> > > #endif
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_WRITE_OWNER
> > > + struct task_struct *owner;
> > > +#endif
> > > };
> > >
> > > extern struct rw_semaphore *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
> > > diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
> > > index 9d3a788..1c582d1 100644
> > > --- a/init/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/init/Kconfig
> > > @@ -1595,6 +1595,15 @@ config TRACEPOINTS
> > >
> > > source "arch/Kconfig"
> > >
> > > +config RWSEM_SPIN_ON_WRITE_OWNER
> > > + bool "Optimistic spin write acquisition for writer owned rw-sem"
> > > + default n
> > > + depends on SMP
> > > + help
> > > + Allows a writer to perform optimistic spinning if another writer own
> > > + the read write semaphore. This gives a greater chance for writer to
> > > + acquire a semaphore before blocking it and putting it to sleep.
> > > +
> > > endmenu # General setup
>
> Can't we just use CONFIG_SMP insted of adding a new Kconfig variable?
I am not comfortable to make the optimistic spinning of rw-sem a default
SMP config option yet. I will like it to see more performance testing
in the tree. I want the ability to turn it off easily.
>
> > >
> > > config HAVE_GENERIC_DMA_COHERENT
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rwsem.c b/kernel/rwsem.c
> > > index cfff143..a32990a 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rwsem.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rwsem.c
> > > @@ -12,6 +12,26 @@
> > >
> > > #include <linux/atomic.h>
> > >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_WRITE_OWNER
> > > +static inline void rwsem_set_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > +{
> > > + sem->owner = current;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void rwsem_clear_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > +{
> > > + sem->owner = NULL;
> > > +}
> > > +#else
> > > +static inline void rwsem_set_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > +{
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void rwsem_clear_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > +{
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * lock for reading
> > > */
> > > @@ -48,6 +68,7 @@ void __sched down_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > rwsem_acquire(&sem->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> > >
> > > LOCK_CONTENDED(sem, __down_write_trylock, __down_write);
> > > + rwsem_set_owner(sem);
> > > }
> > >
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(down_write);
> > > @@ -59,8 +80,10 @@ int down_write_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > {
> > > int ret = __down_write_trylock(sem);
> > >
> > > - if (ret == 1)
> > > + if (ret == 1) {
> > > rwsem_acquire(&sem->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
> > > + rwsem_set_owner(sem);
> > > + }
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -86,6 +109,7 @@ void up_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > rwsem_release(&sem->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
> > >
> > > __up_write(sem);
> > > + rwsem_clear_owner(sem);
> > > }
> > >
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(up_write);
> > > @@ -100,6 +124,7 @@ void downgrade_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > * dependency.
> > > */
> > > __downgrade_write(sem);
> > > + rwsem_clear_owner(sem);
> > > }
> > >
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(downgrade_write);
> > > @@ -122,6 +147,7 @@ void _down_write_nest_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem, struct lockdep_map *nest)
> > > rwsem_acquire_nest(&sem->dep_map, 0, 0, nest, _RET_IP_);
> > >
> > > LOCK_CONTENDED(sem, __down_write_trylock, __down_write);
> > > + rwsem_set_owner(sem);
> > > }
> > >
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(_down_write_nest_lock);
> > > @@ -141,6 +167,7 @@ void down_write_nested(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int subclass)
> > > rwsem_acquire(&sem->dep_map, subclass, 0, _RET_IP_);
> > >
> > > LOCK_CONTENDED(sem, __down_write_trylock, __down_write);
> > > + rwsem_set_owner(sem);
> > > }
> > >
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(down_write_nested);
> > > diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
> > > index 2072af5..8e331c5 100644
> > > --- a/lib/rwsem.c
> > > +++ b/lib/rwsem.c
> > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> > > */
> > > #include <linux/rwsem.h>
> > > #include <linux/sched.h>
> > > +#include <linux/sched/rt.h>
> > > #include <linux/init.h>
> > > #include <linux/export.h>
> > >
> > > @@ -27,6 +28,9 @@ void __init_rwsem(struct rw_semaphore *sem, const char *name,
> > > sem->count = RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE;
> > > raw_spin_lock_init(&sem->wait_lock);
> > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sem->wait_list);
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_WRITE_OWNER
> > > + sem->owner = NULL;
> > > +#endif
> > > }
> > >
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__init_rwsem);
> > > @@ -192,6 +196,128 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > return sem;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static inline int rwsem_try_write_lock(long count, bool need_lock,
> > > + struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!(count & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)) {
> > > + /* Try acquiring the write lock. */
> > > + if (sem->count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
> > > + cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
> > > + RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) {
> > > + if (need_lock)
> > > + raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> > > + if (!list_is_singular(&sem->wait_list))
> > > + rwsem_atomic_update(RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, sem);
> > > + return 1;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_WRITE_OWNER
> > > +static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > +{
> > > + int retval = true;
> > > +
> > > + /* Spin only if active writer running */
> > > + if (!sem->owner)
> > > + return false;
> > > +
> > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > + if (sem->owner)
> > > + retval = sem->owner->on_cpu;
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Why is this a safe dereference? Could not another cpu have just
> > dropped the sem (and thus set sem->owner to NULL and oops)?
> >
The rcu read lock should protect against sem->owner being NULL.
> >
> > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > + /*
> > > + * if lock->owner is not set, the sem owner may have just acquired
> > > + * it and not set the owner yet, or the sem has been released, or
> > > + * reader active.
> > > + */
> > > + return retval;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool owner_running(struct rw_semaphore *lock,
> > > + struct task_struct *owner)
> > > +{
> > > + if (lock->owner != owner)
> > > + return false;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Ensure we emit the owner->on_cpu, dereference _after_ checking
> > > + * lock->owner still matches owner, if that fails, owner might
> > > + * point to free()d memory, if it still matches, the rcu_read_lock()
> > > + * ensures the memory stays valid.
> > > + */
> >
> > Again just my opinion, but kernel style is to prefer multi-line comments
> > in a function comment block.
> >
> > > + barrier();
> > > +
> > > + return owner->on_cpu;
> > > +}
>
> A lot of these functions are exact duplicates of kernel/mutex.c - we
> should probably think of adding generic interfaces for mutexes and
> rwsems...
Probably there are pros and cons. The cons is the logic are
similar but may not be exact duplicate if later on we are
adding rw-sem specific tweaks. May be cleaner to keep the two
separated.
>
> > > +
> > > +static noinline
> > > +int rwsem_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *lock, struct task_struct *owner)
> > > +{
> > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > + while (owner_running(lock, owner)) {
> > > + if (need_resched())
> > > + break;
> > > +
> > > + arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> > > + }
> > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * We break out the loop above on need_resched() and when the
> > > + * owner changed, which is a sign for heavy contention. Return
> > > + * success only when lock->owner is NULL.
> > > + */
> > > + return lock->owner == NULL;
> > > +}
>
> ditto
>
> > > +
> > > +int rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > +{
> > > + struct task_struct *owner;
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > > +
> > > + /* sem->wait_lock should not be held when doing optimistic spinning */
> > > + if (!rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(sem))
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + preempt_disable();
> > > + for (;;) {
> > > + owner = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->owner);
> > > + if (owner && !rwsem_spin_on_owner(sem, owner))
> > > + break;
> >
> > Will this spin for full scheduler value on a reader-owned lock?
>
> Yep, it should.
No. We will spin only on writer-owned lock in the current version.
The owner field is only set when a writer own it. Spinning on reader
is tricky as there could be multiple readers. Earlier Davidlohr and
I have privately tested a different version where we allowed the
owner field to be set by reader but only get cleared if
sem->owner == current (suggested by Matthew Wilcox). However we
didn't get a performance boost so I did not include this.
>
> >
> > > + /* wait_lock will be acquired if write_lock is obtained */
> > > + if (rwsem_try_write_lock(sem->count, true, sem)) {
> > > + ret = 1;
> > > + goto out;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * When there's no owner, we might have preempted between the
> > ^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Isn't pre-emption disabled?
>
> Hmm yeah, that might be a bogus comment.
That's true. My original change didn't have pre-emption disabled so this
slipped through.
>
> >
> >
> > > + * owner acquiring the lock and setting the owner field. If
> > > + * we're an RT task that will live-lock because we won't let
> > > + * the owner complete.
> > > + */
> > > + if (!owner && (need_resched() || rt_task(current)))
> > > + break;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * The cpu_relax() call is a compiler barrier which forces
> > > + * everything in this loop to be re-loaded. We don't need
> > > + * memory barriers as we'll eventually observe the right
> > > + * values at the cost of a few extra spins.
> > > + */
> > > + arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> > > +
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > +out:
> > > + preempt_enable();
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * wait until we successfully acquire the write lock
> > > */
> > > @@ -200,6 +326,9 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > long count, adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
> > > struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
> > > struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_WRITE_OWNER
> > > + bool try_optimistic_spin = true;
> > > +#endif
> > >
> > > /* set up my own style of waitqueue */
> > > waiter.task = tsk;
> > > @@ -223,20 +352,17 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > /* wait until we successfully acquire the lock */
> > > set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > > while (true) {
> > > - if (!(count & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)) {
> > > - /* Try acquiring the write lock. */
> > > - count = RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
> > > - if (!list_is_singular(&sem->wait_list))
> > > - count += RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
> > > -
> > > - if (sem->count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
> > > - cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, count) ==
> > > - RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
> > > - break;
> > > - }
> > > + if (rwsem_try_write_lock(count, false, sem))
> > > + break;
> > >
> > > raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> > >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_WRITE_OWNER
> > > + /* do optimistic spinning */
> > > + if (try_optimistic_spin && rwsem_optimistic_spin(sem))
> > > + break;
> > > + try_optimistic_spin = false;
> > > +#endif
> > > /* Block until there are no active lockers. */
> > > do {
> > > schedule();
> >
> > Regards,
> > Peter Hurley
> >
>
>
--
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