linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/5] lib/dlock-list: Distributed and lock-protected lists

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5783D965.2030506@hpe.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:37:41 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/5] lib/dlock-list: Distributed and lock-protected
 lists

On 06/07/2016 04:13 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 03:35:51PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Linked list is used everywhere in the Linux kernel. However, if many
>> threads are trying to add or delete entries into the same linked list,
>> it can create a performance bottleneck.
>>
>> This patch introduces a new list APIs that provide a set of distributed
>> lists (one per CPU), each of which is protected by its own spinlock.
> One thing I don't like is that it is per CPU. One per CPU is almost
> certainly overkill and not needed for true scalability, especially
> on systems using SMT. Also it makes the case where everything has to
> be walked more and more expensive, because all these locks have to
> be taken. Even when not contended this will add up.

When iterating the lists, the lock shouldn't be taken when a list is empty.

> It would be better to do this per every Nth CPU. Now I don't have
> a clear answer what the best N is, but I'm pretty sure it's>  1.
> For example at least on SMT systems only per core instead of per
> thread. Likely even more coarse grained, although per socket
> may be not good enough.
>
> -Andi

I have just sent out an updated patch to mapped 2 cores to each list. 
Maybe you can take a look to see if that is good enough from your point 
of view.

Cheers,
Longman