linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Don't contend with readers when setting _QW

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:	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:28:19 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Don't contend with readers when
 setting _QW_WAITING

On 06/10/2015 03:35 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Waiman Long<Waiman.Long@...com>  wrote:
>
>> The current cmpxchg() loop in setting the _QW_WAITING flag for writers
>> in queue_write_lock_slowpath() will contend with incoming readers
>> causing possibly extra cmpxchg() operations that are wasteful. This
>> patch changes the code to do a byte cmpxchg() to eliminate contention
>> with new readers.
>>
>> A multithreaded microbenchmark running 5M read_lock/write_lock loop
>> on a 8-socket 80-core Westmere-EX machine running 4.0 based kernel
>> with the qspinlock patch have the following execution times (in ms)
>> with and without the patch:
>>
>> With R:W ratio = 5:1
>>
>> 	Threads	   w/o patch	with patch	% change
>> 	-------	   ---------	----------	--------
>> 	   2	     990 	    895		  -9.6%
>> 	   3	    2136 	   1912		 -10.5%
>> 	   4	    3166	   2830		 -10.6%
>> 	   5	    3953	   3629		  -8.2%
>> 	   6	    4628	   4405		  -4.8%
>> 	   7	    5344	   5197		  -2.8%
>> 	   8	    6065	   6004		  -1.0%
>> 	   9	    6826	   6811		  -0.2%
>> 	  10	    7599	   7599		   0.0%
>> 	  15	    9757	   9766		  +0.1%
>> 	  20	   13767	  13817		  +0.4%
>>
>> With small number of contending threads, this patch can improve
>> locking performance by up to 10%. With more contending threads,
>> however, the gain diminishes.
> Mind posting the microbenchmark?
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	Ingo

I have attached the tool that I used for testing.

Cheers,
Longman

Download attachment "locktest.tar.gz" of type "application/x-gzip" (6919 bytes)