| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAOGi=dP-Fv6ScF4t6YpXq=BK5=DitH3tFTVGy7dUx=5uVKn0ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:12:28 +0800
From: Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@...il.com>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ma Ling <ling.ml@...baba-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] qspinlock: Improve performance by reducing load
instruction rollback
2015-10-20 1:18 GMT+08:00 Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>:
> On 10/18/2015 10:27 PM, 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
>> instructions to be serialization, 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> What kind of performance test were you running? With the right timing, it is
> possible that you see some performance gain. However, if the lock hold time
> is longer so that a fair number of cmpxchg instructions have to be executed
> before it can get the lock, you may see a performance degradation especially
> if the lock holder needs to access the lock cacheline.
>
> In general, we try to avoid this kind of cmpxchg loop unless we are sure
> that at most a few iterations of the loop may happen.
Waiman,
The machine is Haswell (2699 V3, COD off, HT on, 2 sockets)
(we have sent test module in separate email)
A. Data is located with lock in one cache line On 2 threads cases
(only write struct member data_a)
1. Load version test 5 times, the cost time is below:
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 103904620
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 104351876
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 118599784
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 103064024
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 103389696
Totally cost time is 533310000
2. Lock cmpxchg version test 5 times, the cost time is below:
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 67081220
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 97640708
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 96439612
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 66699296
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 96464800
Totally cost time is 424325636
Above data shows lock cmpxchg is better about average 25% (533310000/424325636)
B. Data is located with lock in different cache line On 2 threads
cases(only write struct member data_b)
1. Load version test 5 times, the cost time is below:
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 174266128
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 205053924
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 160165124
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 173241552
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 205765008
Totally cost time is 918491736
2. Lock cmpxchg version test 5 times, the cost time is below:
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 113410044
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 116293104
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 116064256
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 189320876
[root@...alhost spinlock]# insmod dummy.ko; rmmod dummy;dmesg -c
all cost time is 123735352
Totally cost time is 658823632
Above data shows lock cmpxchg is better about average 39% (918491736/658823632)
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Ling
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ma Ling<ling.ml@...baba-inc.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 43
>> ++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>> 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
>> index 87e9ce6..16421f2 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
>> @@ -332,25 +332,14 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock
>> *lock, u32 val)
>> if (new == _Q_LOCKED_VAL)
>> return;
>>
>> - /*
>> - * we're pending, wait for the owner to go away.
>> - *
>> - * *,1,1 -> *,1,0
>> + /* we're waiting, and get lock owner
>> *
>> - * this wait loop must be a load-acquire such that we match the
>> - * store-release that clears the locked bit and create lock
>> - * sequentiality; this is because not all
>> clear_pending_set_locked()
>> - * implementations imply full barriers.
>> + * *,1,* -> *,0,1
>> */
>> - while ((val = smp_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter))&
>> _Q_LOCKED_MASK)
>> + while (cmpxchg(&((struct __qspinlock *)lock)->locked_pending,
>> + _Q_PENDING_VAL, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != _Q_PENDING_VAL)
>> cpu_relax();
>> -
>> - /*
>> - * take ownership and clear the pending bit.
>> - *
>> - * *,1,0 -> *,0,1
>> - */
>> - clear_pending_set_locked(lock);
>> +
>> return;
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -399,17 +388,21 @@ queue:
>> * we're at the head of the waitqueue, wait for the owner&
>> pending to
>> * go away.
>> *
>> - * *,x,y -> *,0,0
>> - *
>> - * this wait loop must use a load-acquire such that we match the
>> - * store-release that clears the locked bit and create lock
>> - * sequentiality; this is because the set_locked() function below
>> - * does not imply a full barrier.
>> - *
>> + * *,x,y -> *,0,1
>> */
>> pv_wait_head(lock, node);
>> - while ((val = smp_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter))&
>> _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK)
>> + next = READ_ONCE(node->next);
>> + while (cmpxchg(&((struct __qspinlock *)lock)->locked_pending, 0,
>
>
> The locked_pending field isn't valid if _Q_PENDING_BITS != 8. So it won't
> work if NR_CPUS is 16k or more.
>
>> + _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0) {
>> + next = READ_ONCE(node->next);
>> cpu_relax();
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (next)
>> + goto next_node;
>
>
> I did notice a slight performance benefit by reading the next pointer early
> in light load cases myself. However, it is a very minor improvement that I
> haven't actively pursued it.
We use "next" to avoid smp_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter)
instruction rollback.
>
>> +
>> + val = smp_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter);
>> + tail = tail | _Q_LOCKED_VAL;
>>
>> /*
>> * claim the lock:
>> @@ -423,7 +416,6 @@ queue:
>> */
>> for (;;) {
>> if (val != tail) {
>> - set_locked(lock);
>> break;
>> }
>> old = atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL);
>> @@ -439,6 +431,7 @@ queue:
>> while (!(next = READ_ONCE(node->next)))
>> cpu_relax();
>>
>> +next_node:
>> arch_mcs_spin_unlock_contended(&next->locked);
>> pv_kick_node(lock, next);
>>
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists