linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched, timer: Use atomics for thread_group

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: <1425332984.5304.66.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date:	Mon, 02 Mar 2015 13:49:44 -0800
From:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Scott Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	jason.low2@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched, timer: Use atomics for thread_group_cputimer
 to improve scalability

On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 11:03 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Jason Low <jason.low2@...com> wrote:
> >
> > This patch converts the timers to 64 bit atomic variables and use
> > atomic add to update them without a lock. With this patch, the percent
> > of total time spent updating thread group cputimer timers was reduced
> > from 30% down to less than 1%.
> 
> NAK.
> 
> Not because I think this is wrong, but because somebody needs to look
> at the effects on 32-bit architectures too.
> 
> In particular, check out lib/atomic64.c - which uses a hashed array of
> 16-bit spinlocks to do 64-bit atomics. That may or may well work ok in
> practice, but it does mean that now sample_group_cputimer() and
> update_gt_cputime() will take that (it ends up generally being the
> same) spinlock three times for the three atomic64_read()'s.

Okay, I will run some tests to see how this change affects the
performance of itimers on 32 bit systems.

While the update_gt_cputime() shouldn't be an issue for performance
since it doesn't get called often, the sample_group_cputimer() needing
to take locks 3 times for each atomic64_read is something that could
impact performance, so we should take a look at that.

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/