linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v15 3/6] locking/qspinlock: Introduce CNA into the slow path of 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]

Date:   Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:05:14 +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 3/6] locking/qspinlock: Introduce CNA into the slow path of qspinlock

> +/*
> + * Implement a NUMA-aware version of MCS (aka CNA, or compact NUMA-aware lock).
> + *
> + * In CNA, spinning threads are organized in two queues, a primary queue for
> + * threads running on the same NUMA node as the current lock holder, and a
> + * secondary queue for threads running on other nodes. Schematically, it
> + * looks like this:
> + *
> + *    cna_node
> + *   +----------+     +--------+         +--------+
> + *   |mcs:next  | --> |mcs:next| --> ... |mcs:next| --> NULL  [Primary queue]
> + *   |mcs:locked| -.  +--------+         +--------+
> + *   +----------+  |
> + *                 `----------------------.
> + *                                        v
> + *                 +--------+         +--------+
> + *                 |mcs:next| --> ... |mcs:next|            [Secondary queue]
> + *                 +--------+         +--------+
> + *                     ^                    |
> + *                     `--------------------'
> + *

probably not only related with NUMA, it might be also related with cache topology.
For example, one NUMA might has a couple of sub domains, each domain shares some
last level cache. ZEN, Power and some ARM servers all have this kind of topology.

lock synchronization within this smaller range should be much faster. anyway, it
looks like a good start to be aware of numa only for this moment.

Thanks
barry