linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] locking/rtqspinlock: Realtime queued spinlocks

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: <7f3195a3-6ae2-38c8-80af-e38f670e83fd@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:02:23 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] locking/rtqspinlock: Realtime queued spinlocks

On 01/04/2017 10:55 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 10:25:14 -0500
> Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>  
>> I know that in -RT kernel, all the non-raw spinlocks are replaced by
>> rtmutex which is a sleeping lock. This can have a real performance
>> impact on systems with more than a few cores. The rtmutex isn't fair either.
> We do fine on 80+ CPUs. Is that enough cores for you ;-)

It depends on what you mean fine. I haven't done the actual benchmark
yet, but I believe that a -RT system with 80+ CPUs will feel noticeably
slower for non-RT tasks than a system with non-RT kernel. I am not
saying that the system will slow down significantly, but the slow down
will certainly be noticeable.

> Note, it's not a true sleeping lock, because of the adaptive nature.
> That is, it spins unless the owner of the lock is sleeping, in which
> case, it too will sleep (why spin waiting for a task that isn't
> running). But if the owner is running, it will spin too.

I think this is a recent change by Davidlohr. However, the spinning is
limited to the top waiter. The rests will still go to sleep.

> We also have tricks to keep normal preemption (like SCHED_OTHER tasks
> running out of their time slot) when they have a lock. This keeps
> contention down on tasks owning locks while sleeping.

Yes, that certainly help.

>> Do you think it is better to keep the raw spinlocks fair and only have
>> the non-raw spinlocks use the RT version?
> Yes.

OK, I can certainly do that.

>
> Note, I also want to get rt_mutex into the kernel first for all sleeping
> locks. That is, get the logic in before we convert spin_locks to
> sleeping locks.
>
> -- Steve

The rtmutex code is already in the upstream kernel. It is just that
there isn't any code yet that can let you flip a switch (a config
option) and change all sleeping locks to use rtmutex.

Cheers,
Longman