linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v15 09/15] pvqspinlock: Implement simple paravirt support for the qspinlock

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: <552BE47C.6040202@hp.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:45:00 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@...il.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 09/15] pvqspinlock: Implement simple paravirt support
 for the qspinlock

On 04/13/2015 10:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 05:41:44PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> +void __init __pv_init_lock_hash(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int pv_hash_size = 4 * num_possible_cpus();
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (pv_hash_size<   (1U<<   LFSR_MIN_BITS))
>>>> +		pv_hash_size = (1U<<   LFSR_MIN_BITS);
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * Allocate space from bootmem which should be page-size aligned
>>>> +	 * and hence cacheline aligned.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	pv_lock_hash = alloc_large_system_hash("PV qspinlock",
>>>> +					       sizeof(struct pv_hash_bucket),
>>>> +					       pv_hash_size, 0, HASH_EARLY,
>>>> +					&pv_lock_hash_bits, NULL,
>>>> +					       pv_hash_size, pv_hash_size);
>>> 	pv_taps = lfsr_taps(pv_lock_hash_bits);
>>>
>> I don't understand what you meant here.
> Let me explain (even though I propose taking all the LFSR stuff out).
>
> pv_lock_hash_bit is a runtime variable, therefore it cannot compile time
> evaluate the forest of if statements required to compute the taps value.
>
> Therefore its best to compute the taps _once_, and this seems like a
> good place to do so.

OK, I got it. That make sense.

>>>> +				goto done;
>>>> +			}
>>>> +		}
>>>> +
>>>> +		hash = lfsr(hash, pv_lock_hash_bits, 0);
>>> Since pv_lock_hash_bits is a variable, you end up running through that
>>> massive if() forest to find the corresponding tap every single time. It
>>> cannot compile-time optimize it.
>> The minimum bits size is now 8. So unless the system has more than 64 vCPUs,
>> it will get the right value in the first if statement.
> Still, no reason to not pre-compute the taps value, its simple enough.
>

Still, we need to keep the hash_bits value as it will needed by the 
hashing function.

I have taken out the lfsr code and use linear probing in the updated 
qspinlock patch that I am working on. However, we can always add that 
back in as an additional patch.

Cheers,
Longman
--
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/