linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations

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:	Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:15:51 +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>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...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>,
	"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations

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

> Ingo,
> 
> I ran the vanilla kernel, the kernel with all rwsem patches and the 
> kernel with all patches except the optimistic spin one.  I am listing 
> two presentations of the data.  Please note that there is about 5% 
> run-run variation.
> 
> % change in performance vs vanilla kernel
> #threads	all	without optspin
> mmap only		
> 1		1.9%	1.6%
> 5		43.8%	2.6%
> 10		22.7%	-3.0%
> 20		-12.0%	-4.5%
> 40		-26.9%	-2.0%
> mmap with mutex acquisition		
> 1		-2.1%	-3.0%
> 5		-1.9%	1.0%
> 10		4.2%	12.5%
> 20		-4.1%	0.6%
> 40		-2.8%	-1.9%

Silly question: how do the two methods of starting N threads compare to 
each other? Do they have identical runtimes? I think PeterZ's point was 
that the pthread_mutex case, despite adding extra serialization, actually 
runs faster in some circumstances.

Also, mind posting the testcase? What 'work' do the threads do - clear 
some memory area? How big is the memory area?

I'd expect this to be about large enough mmap()s showing page fault 
processing to be mmap_sem bound and the serialization via pthread_mutex() 
sets up a 'train' of threads in one case, while the parallel startup would 
run into the mmap_sem in the regular case.

So I'd expect this to be a rather sensitive workload and you'd have to 
actively engineer it to hit the effect PeterZ mentioned. I could imagine 
MPI workloads to run into such patterns - but not deterministically.

Only once you've convinced yourself that you are hitting that kind of 
effect reliably on the vanilla kernel, could/should the effects of an 
improved rwsem implementation be measured.

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/