linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5 - V2] locks: avoid thundering-herd wake-ups

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: <20180810154742.GE7906@fieldses.org>
Date:   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:47:42 -0400
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Martin Wilck <mwilck@...e.de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Frank Filz <ffilzlnx@...dspring.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 - V2] locks: avoid thundering-herd wake-ups

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 01:17:14PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09 2018, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:50:58AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> >> You're good at this game!
> >
> > Everybody's got to have a hobby, mine is pathological posix locking
> > cases....
> >
> >> So, because a locker with the same "owner" gets a free pass, you can
> >> *never* say that any lock which conflicts with A also conflicts with B,
> >> as a lock with the same owner as B will never conflict with B, even
> >> though it conflicts with A.
> >> 
> >> I think there is still value in having the tree, but when a waiter is
> >> attached under a new blocker, we need to walk the whole tree beneath the
> >> waiter and detach/wake anything that is not blocked by the new blocker.
> >
> > If you're walking the whole tree every time then it might as well be a
> > flat list, I think?
> 
> The advantage of a tree is that it keeps over-lapping locks closer
> together.
> For it to make a difference you would need a load where lots of threads
> were locking several different small ranges, and other threads were
> locking large ranges that cover all the small ranges.

OK, I'm not sure I understand, but I'll give another look at the next
version....

> I doubt this is common, but it doesn't seem as strange as other things
> I've seen in the wild.
> The other advantage, of course, is that I've already written the code,
> and I like it.
> 
> Maybe I'll do a simple-list version, then a patch to convert that to the
> clever-tree version, and we can then have something concrete to assess.

That might help, thanks.

--b.