linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce starvation avoidance into CNA

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: <e83bfc8c-1c5b-572f-ef3a-a85e114f2677@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:09:29 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@...cle.com>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com,
        arnd@...db.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
        guohanjun@...wei.com, jglauber@...vell.com
Cc:     steven.sistare@...cle.com, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
        dave.dice@...cle.com, rahul.x.yadav@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce starvation avoidance
 into CNA

On 10/16/19 12:29 AM, Alex Kogan wrote:
> Keep track of the number of intra-node lock handoffs, and force
> inter-node handoff once this number reaches a preset threshold.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@...cle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/qspinlock.c     |  3 +++
>  kernel/locking/qspinlock_cna.h | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> index 6d8c4a52e44e..1d0d884308ef 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> @@ -597,6 +597,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(queued_spin_lock_slowpath);
>  #if !defined(_GEN_CNA_LOCK_SLOWPATH) && defined(CONFIG_NUMA_AWARE_SPINLOCKS)
>  #define _GEN_CNA_LOCK_SLOWPATH
>  
> +#undef pv_init_node
> +#define pv_init_node			cna_init_node
> +
>  #undef pv_wait_head_or_lock
>  #define pv_wait_head_or_lock		cna_pre_scan
>  
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_cna.h b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_cna.h
> index 4d095f742d31..b92a6f9a19db 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_cna.h
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_cna.h
> @@ -50,9 +50,19 @@ struct cna_node {
>  	struct mcs_spinlock	mcs;
>  	int			numa_node;
>  	u32			encoded_tail;
> -	u32			pre_scan_result; /* 0 or an encoded tail */
> +	u32			pre_scan_result; /* 0, 1 or an encoded tail */
> +	u32			intra_count;
>  };
>  
> +/*
> + * Controls the threshold for the number of intra-node lock hand-offs. It can
> + * be tuned and depend, e.g., on the number of CPUs per node. For now,
> + * choose a value that provides reasonable long-term fairness without
> + * sacrificing performance compared to a version that does not have any
> + * fairness guarantees.
> + */
> +#define INTRA_NODE_HANDOFF_THRESHOLD (1 << 16)

I think 64k is too high. I will be more comfortable with a number like
(1 << 8). The worst case latency for a lock waiter from the other node
is just not acceptable.

Cheers,
Longman