linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] locking/percpu-rwsem: use this_cpu_{inc|dec}() for read

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]

Message-ID: <20200917084831.GA29295@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:48:31 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] locking/percpu-rwsem: use this_cpu_{inc|dec}() for
 read_count

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 08:32:20PM +0800, Hou Tao wrote:
> > Subject: locking/percpu-rwsem: Use this_cpu_{inc,dec}() for read_count
> > From: Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
> > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 22:07:50 +0800
> > 
> > From: Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
> > 
> > The __this_cpu*() accessors are (in general) IRQ-unsafe which, given
> > that percpu-rwsem is a blocking primitive, should be just fine.
> > 
> > However, file_end_write() is used from IRQ context and will cause
> > load-store issues.
> > 
> > Fixing it by using the IRQ-safe this_cpu_*() for operations on
> > read_count. This will generate more expensive code on a number of
> > platforms, which might cause a performance regression for some of the
> > other percpu-rwsem users.
> > 
> > If any such is reported, we can consider alternative solutions.
> > 
> I have simply test the performance impact on both x86 and aarch64.
> 
> There is no degradation under x86 (2 sockets, 18 core per sockets, 2 threads per core)
> 
> v5.8.9
> no writer, reader cn                               | 18        | 36        | 72
> the rate of down_read/up_read per second           | 231423957 | 230737381 | 109943028
> the rate of down_read/up_read per second (patched) | 232864799 | 233555210 | 109768011
> 
> However the performance degradation is huge under aarch64 (4 sockets, 24 core per sockets): nearly 60% lost.
> 
> v4.19.111
> no writer, reader cn                               | 24        | 48        | 72        | 96
> the rate of down_read/up_read per second           | 166129572 | 166064100 | 165963448 | 165203565
> the rate of down_read/up_read per second (patched) |  63863506 |  63842132 |  63757267 |  63514920
> 
> I will test the aarch64 host by using v5.8 tomorrow.

Thanks. We did improve the preempt_count() munging a bit since 4.19 (I
think), so maybe 5.8 will be a bit better. Please report back!

Will