linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v15 0/6] 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20210930094447.9719-1-21cnbao@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:44:47 +0800
From:   Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To:     alex.kogan@...cle.com
Cc:     arnd@...db.de, bp@...en8.de, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
        dave.dice@...cle.com, guohanjun@...wei.com, hpa@...or.com,
        jglauber@...vell.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, longman@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, steven.sistare@...cle.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, will.deacon@....com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 0/6] Add NUMA-awareness to qspinlock

> We have done some performance evaluation with the locktorture module
> as well as with several benchmarks from the will-it-scale repo.
> The following locktorture results are from an Oracle X5-4 server
> (four Intel Xeon E7-8895 v3 @ 2.60GHz sockets with 18 hyperthreaded
> cores each). Each number represents an average (over 25 runs) of the
> total number of ops (x10^7) reported at the end of each run. The 
> standard deviation is also reported in (), and in general is about 3%
> from the average. The 'stock' kernel is v5.12.0,

I assume x5-4 server has the crossbar topology and its numa diameter is
1hop, and all tests were done on this kind of symmetrical topology. Am
I right? 

    ┌─┐                 ┌─┐
    │ ├─────────────────┤ │
    └─┤1               1└┬┘
      │  1           1   │
      │    1       1     │
      │      1   1       │
      │        1         │
      │      1   1       │
      │     1      1     │
      │   1         1    │
     ┌┼┐1             1  ├─┐
     │┼┼─────────────────┤ │
     └─┘                 └─┘


what if the hardware is using the ring topology and other topologies with
2-hops or even 3-hops such as:

     ┌─┐                 ┌─┐
     │ ├─────────────────┤ │
     └─┤                 └┬┘
       │                  │
       │                  │
       │                  │
       │                  │
       │                  │
       │                  │
       │                  │
      ┌┤                  ├─┐
      │┼┬─────────────────┤ │
      └─┘                 └─┘


or:


    ┌───┐       ┌───┐      ┌────┐      ┌─────┐
    │   │       │   │      │    │      │     │
    │   │       │   │      │    │      │     │
    ├───┼───────┼───┼──────┼────┼──────┼─────┤
    │   │       │   │      │    │      │     │
    └───┘       └───┘      └────┘      └─────┘

do we need to consider the distances of numa nodes in the secondary
queue? does it still make sense to treat everyone else equal in
secondary queue?

Thanks
barry