linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Make owner store task pointer of last owning reader

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9730a289-dac8-a255-4306-43a676059d73@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Sep 2018 08:56:40 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Make owner store task pointer of last
 owning reader

On 09/11/2018 04:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:15:50AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018, Waiman Long wrote:
>>
>>> One major issue with a combined count/owner is that we may have to use
>>> cmpxchg for reader lock which will certainly impact reader-heavy
>>> workloads. I have also thought about ways to compress the task pointer
>>> address so that it can use fewer bits and leave the rests for reader
>>> count. It is probably doable on 64-bit systems, but likely not on 32-bit
>>> system given that there are less bits to play around.
>> Yeah we've discussed this before. As a cleanup it would obviously be good,
>> but I fear about raw performance loss when using cmpxchg instead of xadd.
> Does it really matter though? Last time I looked at something similar
> (refcount_t) the "LOCK INCL" vs "LOCK CMPXCHG" was something like 15 vs
> 23 cycles (and that was with the cmpxchg loop actually doing a lot
> more).
>
> Do we really care about the down_read() path _that_ much? I thought that
> with the main pain point, pagefaults, the problem was mostly the line
> bouncing, not a few extra cycles.

It is not simply that cmpxchg needs more cycles to run, it is the fact
that a few retries may be necessary to actually increment the count in
case of contention leading to more RMW cycles than with xadd. I am not
saying that we can't do that, but there is a price we need to pay.

Cheers,
Longman