linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v2 2/6] locking/rwsem: Stop active read lock ASAP

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: <20160615172242.GQ30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:22:42 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v2 2/6] locking/rwsem: Stop active read lock ASAP

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 06:48:05PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Currently, when down_read() fails, the active read locking isn't undone
> until the rwsem_down_read_failed() function grabs the wait_lock. If the
> wait_lock is contended, it may takes a while to get the lock. During
> that period, writer lock stealing will be disabled because of the
> active read lock.
> 
> This patch will release the active read lock ASAP so that writer lock
> stealing can happen sooner. The only downside is when the reader is
> the first one in the wait queue as it has to issue another atomic
> operation to update the count.
> 
> On a 4-socket Haswell machine running on a 4.7-rc1 tip-based kernel,
> the fio test with multithreaded randrw and randwrite tests on the
> same file on a XFS partition on top of a NVDIMM with DAX were run,
> the aggregated bandwidths before and after the patch were as follows:
> 
>   Test      BW before patch     BW after patch  % change
>   ----      ---------------     --------------  --------
>   randrw        1210 MB/s          1352 MB/s      +12%
>   randwrite     1622 MB/s          1710 MB/s      +5.4%
> 
> The write-only microbench also showed improvement because some read
> locking was done by the XFS code.

How does a reader only micro-bench react? I'm thinking the extra atomic
might hurt a bit.