linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load instruction rollback

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: <CAOGi=dNtAYBo13Z1KTD3RaeGg8DEjPuRUFrd5GZkJcANRTZUWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:03:56 +0800
From:	Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ma Ling <ling.ml@...baba-inc.com>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load
 instruction rollback

2015-10-19 17:46 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:27:22AM +0800, ling.ma.program@...il.com wrote:
>> From: Ma Ling <ling.ml@...baba-inc.com>
>>
>> All load instructions can run speculatively but they have to follow
>> memory order rule in multiple cores as below:
>> _x = _y = 0
>>
>> Processor 0                           Processor 1
>>
>> mov r1, [ _y]  //M1                   mov [ _x], 1  //M3
>> mov r2, [ _x]  //M2                   mov [ _y], 1  //M4
>>
>> If r1 = 1, r2 must be 1
>>
>> In order to guarantee above rule, although Processor 0 execute
>> M1 and M2 instruction out of order, they are kept in ROB,
>> when load buffer for _x in Processor 0 received the update
>> message from Processor 1, Processor 0 need to roll back
>> from M2 instruction, which will flush the whole pipeline,
>> the latency is over the penalty from branch prediction miss.
>>
>> In this patch we use lock cmpxchg instruction to force load
>
> "lock cmpxchg" makes me think you're working on x86.
>
>> instructions to be serialization,
>
> smp_rmb() does that, and that's 'free' on x86. Because x86 doesn't do
> read reordering.
>
>> the destination operand
>> receives a write cycle without regard to the result of
>> the comparison, which can help us to reduce the penalty
>> from load instruction roll back.
>
> And that makes me think I'm not understanding what you're getting at. If
> you need to force memory order, a "fence" (or smp_mb()) would still be
> cheaper than endlessly pulling the line into exclusive state for no
> reason, right?
>
>> Our experiment indicates the performance can be improved by 10%~15%
>> for 2 and 3 threads cases, the conflicts from lock cache line
>> spend them most of the time.
>
> That just doesn't parse, what?
When the thread number is 2 or 3, only lock cache line will generate conflicts,
and cost them the most of the time.

Thanks
Ling
--
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/