linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-v2 1/3] percpu_ida: Make percpu_ida_alloc + callers accept task state bitmask

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:	Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:22:54 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>
Cc:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v2 1/3] percpu_ida: Make percpu_ida_alloc + callers
 accept task state bitmask

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 05:28:29AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> pool->lock is also going to be fairly badly contended in the worst case,
> and that can get real bad real fast... now that I think about it we
> probably want to avoid the __alloc_global_tag() double call just because
> of that, pool->lock is going to be quite a bit more contended than the
> waitlist lock just because fo the amount of work done under it.

On top of the two previous; I think we can reduce pool->lock contention
by not holding it while doing steal_tags().

By dropping pool->lock around steal_tags() we loose serialization over:

  pool->cpus_have_tags is an atomic bitmask, and
  pool->cpu_last_stolem, that's a heuristic anyway, so sod it.

We further loose the guarantee relied upon by percpu_ida_free(), so have
it also acquire the tags->lock, which should be a far less contended
resource.

Now everything modifying percpu_ida_cpu state holds
percpu_ida_cpu::lock, everything that modifies the actual percpu_ida
freelists holds percpu_ida::lock, and percpu_ida_cpu::lock nests inside
percpu_ida::lock.


The only annoying thing is that we're still holding IRQs over
steal_tags(), we should be able to make that a preempt_disable() without
too much effort, or very much cheat and drop even that and rely on the
percpu_ida_cpu::lock to serialize everything and just hope that we don't
migrate too often.

But that's for another patch.

---
--- a/lib/percpu_ida.c
+++ b/lib/percpu_ida.c
@@ -68,8 +68,6 @@ static inline void steal_tags(struct per
 	unsigned cpus_have_tags, cpu = pool->cpu_last_stolen;
 	struct percpu_ida_cpu *remote;
 
-	lockdep_assert_held(&pool->lock);
-
 	for (cpus_have_tags = cpumask_weight(&pool->cpus_have_tags);
 	     cpus_have_tags * pool->percpu_max_size > pool->nr_tags / 2;
 	     cpus_have_tags--) {
@@ -141,18 +139,24 @@ static inline int alloc_global_tag(struc
 			  min(pool->nr_free, pool->percpu_batch_size));
 	}
 
+	spin_unlock(&pool->lock);
+
 	if (!tags->nr_free)
 		steal_tags(pool, tags);
 
 	if (tags->nr_free) {
-		tag = tags->freelist[--tags->nr_free];
+		spin_lock(&tags->lock);
 		if (tags->nr_free) {
-			cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(),
-					&pool->cpus_have_tags);
+			tag = tags->freelist[--tags->nr_free];
+			if (tags->nr_free) {
+				cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(),
+						&pool->cpus_have_tags);
+			}
 		}
+		spin_unlock(&tags->lock);
 	}
 
-	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pool->lock, flags);
+	local_irq_restore(flags);
 
 	return tag;
 }
@@ -238,12 +242,8 @@ void percpu_ida_free(struct percpu_ida *
 
 	if (nr_free == pool->percpu_max_size) {
 		spin_lock(&pool->lock);
+		spin_lock(&tags->lock);
 
-		/*
-		 * Global lock held and irqs disabled, don't need percpu lock
-		 * because everybody accessing remote @tags will hold
-		 * pool->lock -- steal_tags().
-		 */
 		if (tags->nr_free == pool->percpu_max_size) {
 			move_tags(pool->freelist, &pool->nr_free,
 				  tags->freelist, &tags->nr_free,
@@ -251,6 +251,8 @@ void percpu_ida_free(struct percpu_ida *
 
 			wake_up(&pool->wait);
 		}
+
+		spin_unlock(&tags->lock);
 		spin_unlock(&pool->lock);
 	}
 
--
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/