linux-kernel - [PATCH -v2] sched,x86: optimize switch

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130731221421.616d3d20@annuminas.surriel.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:14:21 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	jmario@...hat.com, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, dzickus@...hat.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH -v2] sched,x86: optimize switch_mm for multi-threaded
 workloads

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:41:39 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> However, as Rik points out, activate_mm() is different in that we
> shouldn't have any preexisting MMU state anyway. And besides, that
> should never trigger the "prev == next" case.
> 
> But it does look a bit messy, and even your comment is a bit
> misleading (it might make somebody think that all of switch_mm() is
> protected from interrupts)

Is this better?  Not that I really care which version gets applied :)

---8<---

Subject: sched,x86: optimize switch_mm for multi-threaded workloads

Dick Fowles, Don Zickus and Joe Mario have been working on improvements 
to perf, and noticed heavy cache line contention on the mm_cpumask,
running linpack on a 60 core / 120 thread system.

The cause turned out to be unnecessary atomic accesses to the
mm_cpumask. When in lazy TLB mode, the CPU is only removed from
the mm_cpumask if there is a TLB flush event.

Most of the time, no such TLB flush happens, and the kernel
skips the TLB reload.  It can also skip the atomic memory
set & test.

Here is a summary of Joe's test results:

 * The __schedule function dropped from 24% of all program cycles down
   to 5.5%.
 * The cacheline contention/hotness for accesses to that bitmask went
   from being the 1st/2nd hottest - down to the 84th hottest (0.3% of
   all shared misses which is now quite cold)
 * The average load latency for the bit-test-n-set instruction in
   __schedule dropped from 10k-15k cycles down to an average of 600 cycles.
 * The linpack program results improved from 133 GFlops to 144 GFlops.
   Peak GFlops rose from 133 to 153. 

Reported-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Reported-by: Joe Mario <jmario@...hat.com>
Tested-by: Joe Mario <jmario@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>

Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h
index cdbf367..3ac6089 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h
@@ -59,7 +59,13 @@ static inline void switch_mm(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
 		this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.state, TLBSTATE_OK);
 		BUG_ON(this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.active_mm) != next);

-		if (!cpumask_test_and_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next))) {
+		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next))) {
+			/* On established mms, the mm_cpumask is only changed
+			 * from irq context, from ptep_clear_flush while in
+			 * lazy tlb mode, and here. Irqs are blocked during
+			 * schedule, protecting us from simultaneous changes.
+			 */
+			cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next));
 			/* We were in lazy tlb mode and leave_mm disabled
 			 * tlb flush IPI delivery. We must reload CR3
 			 * to make sure to use no freed page tables.
--
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/