linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] locking/mutex: Rewrite basic mutex

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: <20160825163555.GJ10138@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2016 18:35:55 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
Cc:     Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>, jason.low2@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] locking/mutex: Rewrite basic mutex

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:33:04PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 08/25/2016 11:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 06:13:43PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> >>I tested this patch on an 8 socket system with the high_systime AIM7
> >>workload with diskfs. The patch provided big performance improvements in
> >>terms of throughput in the highly contended cases.
> >>
> >>-------------------------------------------------
> >>|  users      | avg throughput | avg throughput |
> >>               | without patch  | with patch     |
> >>-------------------------------------------------
> >>| 10 - 90     |   13,943 JPM   |   14,432 JPM   |
> >>-------------------------------------------------
> >>| 100 - 900   |   75,475 JPM   |  102,922 JPM   |
> >>-------------------------------------------------
> >>| 1000 - 1900 |   77,299 JPM   |  115,271 JPM   |
> >>-------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>Unfortunately, at 2000 users, the modified kernel locked up.
> >>
> >># INFO: task reaim:<#>  blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> >>
> >>So something appears to be buggy.
> >So with the previously given changes to reaim, I get the below results
> >on my 4 socket Haswell with the new version of 1/3 (also below).
> >
> >I still need to update 3/3..
> >
> >Note that I think my reaim change wrecked the jobs/min calculation
> >somehow, as it keeps increasing. I do think however that the numbers are
> >comparable between runs, since they're wrecked the same way.
> 
> The performance data for the 2 kernels were roughly the same. This was what
> I had been expecting as there was no change in algorithm in how the slowpath
> was being handled. So I was surprised by Jason's result yesterday showing
> such a big difference.

Its because the mutex wasn't quite exclusive enough :-) If you let in
multiple owner, like with that race you found, you get big gains in
throughput ...