linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation

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]

Message-ID: <528FBFFA.1000807@hp.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:35:06 -0500
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation

On 11/22/2013 02:14 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Waiman Long<Waiman.Long@...com>  wrote:
>> In term of single-thread performance (no contention), a 256K
>> lock/unlock loop was run on a 2.4GHz and 2.93Ghz Westmere x86-64
>> CPUs. The following table shows the average time (in ns) for a single
>> lock/unlock sequence (including the looping and timing overhead):
>>
>> Lock Type                   2.4GHz      2.93GHz
>> ---------                   ------      -------
>> Ticket spinlock              14.9        12.3
>> Read lock                    17.0        13.5
>> Write lock                   17.0        13.5
>> Queue read lock              16.0        13.4
>> Queue write lock              9.2         7.8
> Can you verify for me that you re-did those numbers? Because it used
> to be that the fair queue write lock was slower than the numbers you
> now quote..
>
> Was the cost of the fair queue write lock purely in the extra
> conditional testing for whether the lock was supposed to be fair or
> not, and now that you dropped that, it's fast? If so, then that's an
> extra argument for the old conditional fair/unfair being complete
> garbage.

Yes, the extra latency of the fair lock in earlier patch is due to the 
need to do a second cmpxchg(). That can be avoided by doing a read 
first, but that is not good for good cache.  So I optimized it for the 
default unfair lock. By supporting only one version, there is no need to 
do a second cmpxchg anymore.

> Alternatively, maybe you just took the old timings, and the above
> numbers are for the old unfair code, and *not* for the actual patch
> you sent out?
>
> So please double-check and verify.
>
>                Linus

I reran the timing test on the 2.93GHz processor. The timing is the 
practically the same. I reused the old one for the 2.4GHz processor.

Regards,
Longman
--
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/