linux-kernel - [PATCH] locking/osq: Drop the overload of osq lock

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 25 Jun 2016 13:42:03 -0400
From:	Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net,
	will.deacon@....com, Waiman.Long@....com, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH] locking/osq: Drop the overload of osq lock

An over-committed guest with more vCPUs than pCPUs has a heavy overload
in osq_lock().

This is because vCPU A hold the osq lock and yield out, vCPU B wait
per_cpu node->locked to be set. IOW, vCPU B wait vCPU A to run and
unlock the osq lock. Even there is need_resched(), it did not help on
such scenario.

To fix such bad issue, add a threshold in one while-loop of osq_lock().
The value of threshold is somehow equal to SPIN_THRESHOLD.

perf record -a perf bench sched messaging -g 400 -p && perf report

before patch:
18.09%  sched-messaging  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] osq_lock
12.28%  sched-messaging  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] rwsem_spin_on_owner
 5.27%  sched-messaging  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] mutex_unlock
 3.89%  sched-messaging  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] wait_consider_task
 3.64%  sched-messaging  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] _raw_write_lock_irq
 3.41%  sched-messaging  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] mutex_spin_on_owner.is
 2.49%  sched-messaging  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] system_call

after patch:
7.62%  sched-messaging  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] wait_consider_task
7.30%  sched-messaging  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] _raw_write_lock_irq
5.93%  sched-messaging  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] mutex_unlock
5.74%  sched-messaging  [unknown]          [H] 0xc000000000077590
4.37%  sched-messaging  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __copy_tofrom_user_powe
2.58%  sched-messaging  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] system_call

Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 12 +++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
index 05a3785..922fe5d 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -81,12 +81,16 @@ osq_wait_next(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock,
 	return next;
 }
 
+/* The threahold should take nearly 0.5ms on most archs */
+#define OSQ_SPIN_THRESHOLD (1 << 15)
+
 bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
 {
 	struct optimistic_spin_node *node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
 	struct optimistic_spin_node *prev, *next;
 	int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
 	int old;
+	int loops;
 
 	node->locked = 0;
 	node->next = NULL;
@@ -118,8 +122,14 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
 	while (!READ_ONCE(node->locked)) {
 		/*
 		 * If we need to reschedule bail... so we can block.
+		 * An over-committed guest with more vCPUs than pCPUs
+		 * might fall in this loop and cause a huge overload.
+		 * This is because vCPU A(prev) hold the osq lock and yield out,
+		 * vCPU B(node) wait ->locked to be set, IOW, wait till
+		 * vCPU A run and unlock the osq lock.
+		 * NOTE that vCPU A and vCPU B might run on same physical cpu.
 		 */
-		if (need_resched())
+		if (need_resched() || loops++ == OSQ_SPIN_THRESHOLD)
 			goto unqueue;
 
 		cpu_relax_lowlatency();
-- 
2.4.11