linux-kernel - Re: Severe performance regression w/ 4.4+ on Android due to cgroup locking changes

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: <CALAqxLWdS4jv8a=bcF433DivjzH-sWsM6BCvW3Apy+JDdN3nMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:43:40 -0700
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@...gle.com>,
	Rom Lemarchand <romlem@...gle.com>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Severe performance regression w/ 4.4+ on Android due to cgroup
 locking changes

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:51:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> So, IIRC, the trade-off is a full memory barrier in read_lock and
>> read_unlock() vs sync_sched() in write.
>>
>> Full memory barriers are expensive and while the combined cost might
>> well exceed the cost of the sync_sched() it doesn't suffer the latency
>> issues.
>>
>> Not sure if we can frob the two in a single codebase, but I can have a
>> poke if Oleg or Paul doesn't beat me to it.
>
> OK, not too horrible if I say so myself :-)
>
> The below is a compile tested only first draft so far. I'll go give it
> some runtime next.

Unfortunately it didn't apply cleanly to the 4.4 based tree I'm
working with, so I had to manually apply the entirety of the
percpu-rwsem.c changes myself. Hopefully I didn't screw it up.

So running with this, I'm still seeing some pretty large delays. 80ms
peak, with lots of >20ms values as well.
So it doesn't seem to have the positive effect that Paul's change provided.

thanks
-john