linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] futex: Remove requirement for lock_page in get_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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402111650250.21991@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:	Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:51:55 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] futex: Remove requirement for lock_page in
 get_futex_key

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 09:45:31AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > 
> > > Thomas Gleixner and Peter Zijlstra discussed off-list that real-time users
> > > currently have a problem with the page lock being contended for unbounded
> > > periods of time during futex operations. The three of us discussed the
> > > possibiltity that the page lock is unnecessary in this case because we are
> > > not concerned with the usual races with reclaim and page cache updates. For
> > > anonymous pages, the associated futex object is the mm_struct which does
> > > not require the page lock. For inodes, we should be able to check under
> > > RCU read lock if the page mapping is still valid to take a reference to
> > > the inode.  This just leaves one rare race that requires the page lock
> > > in the slow path. This patch does not completely eliminate the page lock
> > > but it should reduce contention in the majority of cases.
> > > 
> > > Patch boots and futextest did not explode but I did no comparison
> > > performance tests. Thomas, do you have details of the workload that
> > > drove you to examine this problem? Alternatively, can you test it and
> > 
> > The scenario is simple. All you need is a PSHARED futex.
> > 
> > Task A 
> >      get_futex_key()
> >      lock_page()
> > 
> > ---> preemption
> > 
> 
> Ok, so scaling numbers of threads doing something like multiple
> consumers using FUTEX_WAIT and then all being woken should trigger it.
> Should not be that hard to device a test if something in futextest does
> not do it alreayd.
> 
> > Now any other task trying to lock that page will have to wait until
> > task A gets scheduled back in, which is an unbound time.
> > 
> > It takes quite some time to reproduce, but I'll ask the people who
> > have that workload to give it a try.
> > 
> 
> Do please. I'd rather not sink time into trying to reproduce a hypothetical
> problem when people who are already familiar with it can provide better
> data. If it stays quiet for too long then I'll either use an existing
> futextest, extend futextest or conclude that the problem was not major
> in the first place if the users cannot be arsed testing a patch.

Took some time, but the folks finally came around to give it a try and
it fixes their problem. I did not explode either, but I doubt, that
their workload can trigger any of the corner cases.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/