linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 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: <20200121132949.GL14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 14:29:49 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux@...linux.org.uk, mingo@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com,
        arnd@...db.de, longman@...hat.com, 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,
        steven.sistare@...cle.com, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
        dave.dice@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce starvation avoidance
 into CNA

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 02:40:41PM -0500, Alex Kogan wrote:

> +/*
> + * Controls the threshold for the number of intra-node lock hand-offs before
> + * the NUMA-aware variant of spinlock is forced to be passed to a thread on
> + * another NUMA node. By default, the chosen value provides reasonable
> + * long-term fairness without sacrificing performance compared to a lock
> + * that does not have any fairness guarantees. The default setting can
> + * be changed with the "numa_spinlock_threshold" boot option.
> + */
> +int intra_node_handoff_threshold __ro_after_init = 1 << 16;

There is a distinct lack of quantitative data to back up that
'reasonable' claim there.

Where is the table of inter-node latencies observed for the various
values tested, and on what criteria is this number deemed reasonable?

To me, 64k lock hold times seems like a giant number, entirely outside
of reasonable.

> +
>  static void __init cna_init_nodes_per_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	struct mcs_spinlock *base = per_cpu_ptr(&qnodes[0].mcs, cpu);
> @@ -97,6 +109,11 @@ static int __init cna_init_nodes(void)
>  }
>  early_initcall(cna_init_nodes);
>  
> +static __always_inline void cna_init_node(struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> +{
> +	((struct cna_node *)node)->intra_count = 0;
> +}
> +
>  /* this function is called only when the primary queue is empty */
>  static inline bool cna_try_change_tail(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val,
>  				       struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> @@ -233,7 +250,9 @@ __always_inline u32 cna_pre_scan(struct qspinlock *lock,
>  {
>  	struct cna_node *cn = (struct cna_node *)node;
>  
> -	cn->pre_scan_result = cna_scan_main_queue(node, node);
> +	cn->pre_scan_result =
> +		cn->intra_count == intra_node_handoff_threshold ?
> +			FLUSH_SECONDARY_QUEUE : cna_scan_main_queue(node, node);

Because:

	if (cn->intra_count < intra_node_handoff_threshold)
		cn->pre_scan_result = cna_scan_main_queue(node, node);
	else
		cn->pre_scan_result = FLUSH_SECONDARY_QUEUE;

was too readable?