linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch 0/5] futex: Allow lockless empty check of hashbucket plist in futex

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:21:40 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Scott Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Tom Vaden <tom.vaden@...com>,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 0/5] futex: Allow lockless empty check of hashbucket
 plist in futex_wake()


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:12:31AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> 
> > I am becoming hesitant about this approach. The following are some
> > results, from my quad-core laptop, measuring the latency of nthread
> > wakeups (1 at a time). In addition, failed wait calls never occur -- so
> > we don't end up including the (otherwise minimal) overhead of the list
> > queue+dequeue, only measuring the smp_mb() usage when !empty list never
> > occurs.
> > 
> > +---------+--------------------+--------+-------------------+--------+----------+
> > | threads | baseline time (ms) | stddev | patched time (ms) | stddev | overhead |
> > +---------+--------------------+--------+-------------------+--------+----------+
> > |     512 | 4.2410             | 0.9762 | 12.3660           | 5.1020 | +191.58% |
> > |     256 | 2.7750             | 0.3997 | 7.0220            | 2.9436 | +153.04% |
> > |     128 | 1.4910             | 0.4188 | 3.7430            | 0.8223 | +151.03% |
> > |      64 | 0.8970             | 0.3455 | 2.5570            | 0.3710 | +185.06% |
> > |      32 | 0.3620             | 0.2242 | 1.1300            | 0.4716 | +212.15% |
> > +---------+--------------------+--------+-------------------+--------+----------+
> > 
> 
> Whee, this is far more overhead than I would have expected... pretty
> impressive really for a simple mfence ;-)

I'm somewhat reluctant to chalk it up to a single mfence - maybe 
timings/behavior changed in some substantial way?

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/