linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 0/5] Add NUMA-awareness to qspinlock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 27 Jan 2020 07:09:02 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@...cle.com>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel <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, dave.dice@...cle.com,
        steven.sistare@...cle.com, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/5] Add NUMA-awareness to qspinlock

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 09:11:43AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 1/26/20 5:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 07:35:35AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 02:41:39PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>> On 1/24/20 11:58 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 09:17:05PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>>>> On 1/24/20 8:59 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>>>>>> You called it!  I will play with QEMU's -numa argument to see if I can get
> >>>>>>> CNA to run for me.  Please accept my apologies for the false alarm.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 							Thanx, Paul
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> CNA is not currently supported in a VM guest simply because the numa
> >>>>>> information is not reliable. You will have to run it on baremetal to
> >>>>>> test it. Sorry for that.
> >>>>> Correction. There is a command line option to force CNA lock to be used
> >>>>> in a VM. Use the "numa_spinlock=on" boot command line parameter.
> >>>> As I understand it, I need to use a series of -numa arguments to qemu
> >>>> combined with the numa_spinlock=on (or =1) on the kernel command line.
> >>>> If the kernel thinks that there is only one NUMA node, it appears to
> >>>> avoid doing CNA.
> >>>>
> >>>> Correct?
> >>>>
> >>>> 							Thanx, Paul
> >>>>
> >>> In auto-detection mode (the default), CNA will only be turned on when
> >>> paravirt qspinlock is not enabled first and there are at least 2 numa
> >>> nodes. The "numa_spinlock=on" option will force it on even when both of
> >>> the above conditions are false.
> >> Hmmm...
> >>
> >> Here is my kernel command line taken from the console log:
> >>
> >> console=ttyS0 locktorture.onoff_interval=0 numa_spinlock=on locktorture.stat_interval=15 locktorture.shutdown_secs=1800 locktorture.verbose=1
> >>
> >> Yet the string "Enabling CNA spinlock" does not appear.
> >>
> >> Ah, idiot here needs to enable CONFIG_NUMA_AWARE_SPINLOCKS in his build.
> >> Trying again with "--kconfig "CONFIG_NUMA_AWARE_SPINLOCKS=y"...
> > And after fixing that, plus adding the other three Kconfig options required
> > to enable this, I really do see "Enabling CNA spinlock" in the console log.
> > Yay!
> >
> > At the end of the 30-minute locktorture exclusive-lock run, I see this:
> >
> > Writes:  Total: 572176565  Max/Min: 54167704/10878216 ???  Fail: 0
> >
> > This is about a five-to-one ratio.  Is this expected behavior, given a
> > single NUMA node on a single-socket system with 12 hardware threads?
> Do you mean within the VM, lscpu showed that the system has one node and
> 12 threads per node? If that is the case, it should behave like regular
> qspinlock and be fair.

I mean that I saw this in dmesg, which I believe to be telling me the
same thing as lscpu saying that there is one node, but you tell me!

[    0.007106] No NUMA configuration found
[    0.007107] Faking a node at [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000001ffdefff]
[    0.007111] NODE_DATA(0) allocated [mem 0x1ffdb000-0x1ffdefff]
[    0.007126] Zone ranges:
[    0.007127]   DMA      [mem 0x0000000000001000-0x0000000000ffffff]
[    0.007128]   DMA32    [mem 0x0000000001000000-0x000000001ffdefff]
[    0.007128]   Normal   empty
[    0.007129] Movable zone start for each node
[    0.007129] Early memory node ranges
[    0.007130]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000000001000-0x000000000009efff]
[    0.007132]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x000000001ffdefff]
[    0.007227] Zeroed struct page in unavailable ranges: 98 pages
[    0.007227] Initmem setup node 0 [mem 0x0000000000001000-0x000000001ffdefff]
[    0.007228] On node 0 totalpages: 130941
[    0.007231]   DMA zone: 64 pages used for memmap
[    0.007231]   DMA zone: 21 pages reserved
[    0.007232]   DMA zone: 3998 pages, LIFO batch:0
[    0.007266]   DMA32 zone: 1984 pages used for memmap
[    0.007267]   DMA32 zone: 126943 pages, LIFO batch:31

> > I will try reader-writer lock next.
> >
> > Again, should I be using qemu's -numa command-line option to create nodes?
> > If so, what would be a sane configuration given 12 CPUs and 512MB of
> > memory for the VM?  If not, what is a good way to exercise CNA's NUMA
> > capabilities within a guest OS?
> 
> You can certainly play around with CNA in a VM. However, it is generally
> not recommended to use CNA in a VM unless the VM cpu topology matches
> the host with 1-to-1 vcpu pinning and there is no vcpu overcommit. In
> this case, one may see some performance improvement using CNA by using
> the "numa_spinlock=on" option to explicitly turn it on.

Sorry, but I will not be booting this on bare metal on the systems that
I currently have access to.  No more than I run rcutorture on bare metal
on them, especially not with newly modified variants of RCU.  ;-)

> Because of the shuffling of queue entries, CNA is inherently less fair
> than the regular qspinlock. However, a ratio of 5 seems excessive to me.
> vcpu preemption may be a factor in contributing to this large variation.
> My testing on bare metal only showed a throughput variation within
> 10-20% at most.

OK.  Any guidance on qemu's -numa, or should I just experiment with it?
The latter will take me some time, as I must focus on other things
this week.

Alternatively, would it make sense for you to give it a spin in a VM?
After all, it is entirely possible that I still have some configuration
or another messed up.

							Thanx, Paul