linux-kernel - Re: [mm/page_alloc] f26b3fa046: netperf.Throughput

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: <56474c28-e62a-36b1-257b-9e5ffb11b0e2@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 May 2022 14:47:02 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Zhengjun Xing <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>,
        fengwei.yin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [mm/page_alloc] f26b3fa046: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -18.0%
 regression

On 5/10/22 14:05, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ Adding locking people in case they have any input ]
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 11:23 PM ying.huang@...el.com
> <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>>> Can you point me to the regression report? I would like to take a look,
>>> thanks.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/1425108604.10337.84.camel@linux.intel.com/
> Hmm.
>
> That explanation looks believable, except that our qspinlocks
> shouldn't be spinning on the lock itself, but spinning on the mcs node
> it inserts into the lock.
>
> Or so I believed before I looked closer at the code again (it's been years).
>
> It turns out we spin on the lock itself if we're the "head waiter". So
> somebody is always spinning.
>
> That's a bit unfortunate for this workload, I guess.
>
> I think from a pure lock standpoint, it's the right thing to do (no
> unnecessary bouncing, with the lock releaser doing just one write, and
> the head waiter spinning on it is doing the right thing).
>
> But I think this is an example of where you end up having that
> spinning on the lock possibly then being a disturbance on the other
> fields around the lock.
>
> I wonder if Waiman / PeterZ / Will have any comments on that. Maybe
> that "spin on the lock itself" is just fundamentally the only correct
> thing, but since my initial reaction was "no, we're spinning on the
> mcs node", maybe that would be _possible_?
>
> We do have a lot of those spinlocks embedded in other data structures
> cases. And if "somebody else is waiting for the lock" contends badly
> with "the lock holder is doing a lot of writes close to the lock",
> then that's not great.

Qspinlock still has one head waiter spinning on the lock. This is much 
better than the original ticket spinlock where there will be n waiters 
spinning on the lock. That is the cost of a cheap unlock. There is no 
way to eliminate all lock spinning unless we use MCS lock directly which 
will require a change in locking API as well as more expensive unlock.

Cheers,
Longman