linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipc/sem: sem

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: <20160628175450.GA19886@linux-80c1.suse>
Date:	Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:54:50 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	1vier1@....de, felixh@...ormatik.uni-bremen.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipc/sem: sem_lock with hysteresis

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016, Manfred Spraul wrote:

>- Only simple ops: patch has no impact (the first 10 semops do not matter)

Agreed.

>- sleeping complex ops: patch has no impact, we are always in complex mode
>- not sleeping complex ops: depends on the size of the array.
>With a 4.000 semaphore array, I see an improvement of factor 20.
>
>There is obviously one case where the patch causes a slowdown:
>- complex op, then 11 simple ops, then repeat.

Yeah, you reset the counter to COMPLEX_MODE_ENTER every time we do a
complexmode_enter(), so if you have interleaving of complex and simple
ops you could end up always taking the big lock. This is my main concern
and not an unusual scenario at all.

I wonder if we could be a bit less aggressive if already in complex_mode
and do something like:

if (sma->complex_mode > 0) {
   WRITE_ONCE(sma->complex_mode, min(complex_mode + 1, COMPLEX_MODE_ENTER));
   return;
}

and still be constrained by COMPLEX_MODE_ENTER... of course that has its own
additional overhead, albeit less contention on the big lock :/

>
>Perhaps: set COMPLEX_MODE_ENTER to 1 or 2, then allow to configure it
>from user space.

Nah, I don't think it's a good idea to expose such internals to userspace.

>Or do not merge the patch and wait until someone come with a profile
>that shows complexmode_enter().

Testing/benchmarking this patch is on my todo list mainly because I'm lacking
a decent box to test it on. But I'm not conformable having this one without
any numbers for say at least a rdbms benchmark. I'm very eager to add the
first patch (complex_mode) once the nits are settled, as it fixes a real bug.

Thanks,
Davidlohr