linux-kernel - Re: performance regressions by "seqcount: Add lockdep functionality to seqcount/seqlock structures"

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, 13 Nov 2013 09:40:48 -0800
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: performance regressions by "seqcount: Add lockdep functionality
 to seqcount/seqlock structures"

On 11/13/2013 01:14 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> FYI, we found some performance regressions caused by commit 1ca7d67c
> ("seqcount: Add lockdep functionality to seqcount/seqlock structures")

So this is expected. seqlock readers are usually very very cheap
operations, and we're now doing lockdep tracking on every iteration
around the loop. As the lockdep help states:

  | If you say Y here, the lock dependency engine will
do                   |  
  | additional runtime checks to debug itself, at the
price                 |  
  | of more runtime overhead.

So now since we're also tracking seqlocks in addition to spinlocks, it
creates more overhead.

Disabling CONFIG_LOCKDEP should restore performance.

thanks
-john

--
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/