linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] rwsem: do optimistic spinning for writer lock acquisition

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]

Message-ID: <20130926065335.GC19090@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:53:35 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	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>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] rwsem: do optimistic spinning for writer lock
 acquisition


* Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> We want to add optimistic spinning to rwsems because
> the writer rwsem does not perform as well as mutexes. Tim noticed that
> for exim (mail server) workloads, when reverting commit 4fc3f1d6 and
> Davidlohr noticed it when converting the i_mmap_mutex to a rwsem in some
> aim7 workloads. We've noticed that the biggest difference
> 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 overhead of moving tasks in and out of wait queue.
> 
> Allowing optimistic spinning before putting the writer on the wait queue
> reduces wait queue contention and provided greater chance for the rwsem
> to get acquired. With these changes, rwsem is on par with mutex.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Reviewed-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Reviewed-by: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
> ---
>  include/linux/rwsem.h |    6 +-
>  kernel/rwsem.c        |   19 +++++-
>  lib/rwsem.c           |  203 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  3 files changed, 207 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/rwsem.h b/include/linux/rwsem.h
> index 0616ffe..ef5a83a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rwsem.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rwsem.h
> @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@ struct rw_semaphore {
>  	long			count;
>  	raw_spinlock_t		wait_lock;
>  	struct list_head	wait_list;
> +	struct task_struct	*owner; /* write owner */
> +	void			*spin_mlock;

> +#define MLOCK(rwsem)    ((struct mcs_spin_node **)&((rwsem)->spin_mlock))

> +		mcs_spin_lock(MLOCK(sem), &node);

> +			mcs_spin_unlock(MLOCK(sem), &node);

> +			mcs_spin_unlock(MLOCK(sem), &node);

> +		mcs_spin_unlock(MLOCK(sem), &node);

That forced type casting is ugly and fragile.

To avoid having to include mcslock.h into rwsem.h just add a forward 
struct declaration, before the struct rw_semaphore definition:

struct mcs_spin_node;

Then define spin_mlock with the right type:

	struct mcs_spin_node		*spin_mlock;

I'd also suggest renaming 'spin_mlock', to reduce unnecessary variants. If 
the lock type name is 'struct mcs_spin_node' then 'mcs_lock' would be a 
perfect field name, right?

While at it, renaming mcs_spin_node to mcs_spinlock might be wise as well, 
and the include file would be named mcs_spinlock.h.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/