linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 0/4] Introducing 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20140131194718.GO5002@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 31 Jan 2014 20:47:18 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
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, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, aswin@...com,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 0/4] Introducing a queue read/write lock
 implementation

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 01:59:02PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 01/31/2014 04:26 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 04:17:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>The below is still small and actually works.
> >OK, so having actually worked through the thing; I realized we can
> >actually do a version without MCS lock and instead use a ticket lock for
> >the waitqueue.
> >
> >This is both smaller (back to 8 bytes for the rwlock_t), and should be
> >faster under moderate contention for not having to touch extra
> >cachelines.
> >
> >Completely untested and with a rather crude generic ticket lock
> >implementation to illustrate the concept:
> >
> 
> Using a ticket lock instead will have the same scalability problem as the
> ticket spinlock as all the waiting threads will spin on the lock cacheline
> causing a lot of cache bouncing traffic. That is the reason why I want to
> replace ticket spinlock with queue spinlock.

But but but, just fix such heavily contended locks. Don't make sensible
code that is lightly contended run slower because of it.

--
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/