linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] Re: [perf/x86] 81ec3f3c4c: will-it-scale.per_process

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]

Date:   Sun, 23 Feb 2020 09:37:06 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
        andi.kleen@...el.com, "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [perf/x86] 81ec3f3c4c: will-it-scale.per_process_ops
 -5.5% regression

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 6:11 AM Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com> wrote:
>
> I tried to use perf-c2c on one platform (not the one that show
> the 5.5% regression), and found the main "hitm" points to the
> "root_user" global data, as there is a task for each CPU doing
> the signal stress test, and both __sigqueue_alloc() and
> __sigqueue_free() will call get_user() and free_uid() to inc/dec
> this root_user's refcount.

What's around it for you?

There might be that 'uidhash_lock' spinlock right next to it, and
maybe that exacerbates the issue?

> Then I added some alignement inside struct "user_struct" (for
> "root_user"), then the -5.5% is gone, with a +2.6% instead.

Do you actually need to align things inside the struct, or is it
sufficient to just align the structure itself?

IOW, is the cache conflicts _within_ the user_struct itself, or is it
with some nearby data (like that uidhash_lock or whatever?)

> One thing I don't understand is, this -5.5% only happens in
> one 2 sockets, 96C/192T Cascadelake platform, as we've run
> the same test on several different platforms. In therory,
> the false sharing may also take effect?

Is that the biggest machine you have access to?

Maybe it just isn't noticeable with smaller core counts. A lot of
conflict loads tend to have "exponential" behavior - when things get
overloaded, performance plummets because it just makes things worse as
everybody gets slower at that contention point and now it gets even
more contended...

             Linus