linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup code path

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]

Date:	Sat, 28 Sep 2013 08:45:51 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
	"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup code path


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

> On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 12:39 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 12:28 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On a large NUMA machine, it is entirely possible that a fairly large
> > > > number of threads are queuing up in the ticket spinlock queue to do
> > > > the wakeup operation. In fact, only one will be needed.  This patch
> > > > tries to reduce spinlock contention by doing just that.
> > > >
> > > > A new wakeup field is added to the rwsem structure. This field is
> > > > set on entry to rwsem_wake() and __rwsem_do_wake() to mark that a
> > > > thread is pending to do the wakeup call. It is cleared on exit from
> > > > those functions.
> > > 
> > > Ok, this is *much* simpler than adding the new MCS spinlock, so I'm
> > > wondering what the performance difference between the two are.
> > 
> > Both approaches should be complementary. The idea of optimistic spinning
> > in rwsems is to avoid putting putting the writer on the wait queue -
> > reducing contention and giving a greater chance for the rwsem
> > to get acquired. Waiman's approach is once the blocking actually occurs,
> > and at this point I'm not sure how this will affect writer stealing
> > logic.
> > 
> 
> I agree with the view that the two approaches are complementary to each 
> other.  They address different bottleneck areas in the rwsem. Here're 
> the performance numbers for exim workload compared to a vanilla kernel.
> 
> Waimain's patch:        +2.0%
> Alex+Tim's patchset:    +4.8%
> Waiman+Alex+Tim:        +5.3%

I think I'd like to see a combo series submitted :-)

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/