linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 3/3] mutex: When there is no owner, stop spinning after too many tries

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:	Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:04:05 -0800
From:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Waiman.Long@...com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com,
	davidlohr@...com, hpa@...or.com, aswin@...com, scott.norton@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] mutex: When there is no owner, stop spinning after
 too many tries

On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 17:00 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:33:10 -0800 Jason Low <jason.low2@...com> wrote:
> 
> > When running workloads that have high contention in mutexes on an 8 socket
> > machine, spinners would often spin for a long time with no lock owner.
> > 
> > One of the potential reasons for this is because a thread can be preempted
> > after clearing lock->owner but before releasing the lock, or preempted after
> > acquiring the mutex but before setting lock->owner. In those cases, the
> > spinner cannot check if owner is not on_cpu because lock->owner is NULL.
> 
> That sounds like a very small window.  And your theory is that this
> window is being hit sufficiently often to impact aggregate runtime
> measurements, which sounds improbable to me?
> 
> > A solution that would address the preemption part of this problem would
> > be to disable preemption between acquiring/releasing the mutex and
> > setting/clearing the lock->owner. However, that will require adding overhead
> > to the mutex fastpath.
> 
> preempt_disable() is cheap, and sometimes free.
> 
> Have you confirmed that the preempt_disable() approach actually fixes
> the performance issues?  If it does then this would confirm your
> "potential reason" hypothesis.  If it doesn't then we should be hunting
> further for the explanation.

Using Ingo's test-mutex application (http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/8/50)
which can also generate high mutex contention, the preempt_disable()
approach did provide approximately a 4% improvement at 160 threads, but
not nearly the 25+% I was seeing with this patchset. So, it looks like
preemption is not the main cause of the problem then.

Thanks,
Jason

--
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/