linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/cputime: Improve scalability of times()/clock

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: <20160901094906.GP10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:49:06 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/cputime: Improve scalability of
 times()/clock_gettime() on 32 bit cpus

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:27:42AM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> My previous commit:
> 
>   a1eb1411b4e4 ("sched/cputime: Improve scalability by not accounting thread group tasks pending runtime")
> 
> helped to achieve good performance of SYS_times() and
> SYS_clock_gettimes(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID) on 64 bit architectures.
> However taking task_rq_lock() when reading t->se.sum_exec_runtime on
> 32 bit architectures still make those syscalls slow.
> 
> The reason why we take the lock is to make 64bit sum_exec_runtime
> variable consistent. While a inconsistency scenario is very very unlike,
> I assume it still may happen at least on some 32 bit architectures.
> 
> To protect the variable I introduced new seqcount lock. Performance
> improvements on machine with 32 cores (32-bit cpus) measured by
> benchmarks described in commit:

No,.. running 32bit kernels on a machine with 32 cores is insane, full
stop.

You're now making rather hot paths slower to benefit a rather slow path,
that too is backwards.

[ also, seqcount is not a lock ].

Really, people should not expect process wide numbers to be fast.