netdev - Re: High contention on the sk_buff

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: <1237427007.8204.55.camel@quadrophenia.thebigcorporation.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:43:27 -0700
From:	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sven@...bigcorporation.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	ghaskins@...ell.com, vernux@...ibm.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, pmullaney@...ell.com
Subject: Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock

On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 18:17 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sven@...bigcorporation.com>
> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:13:11 -0700
> 
> > On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 18:03 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
> > > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:54:04 -0400
> > > 
> > > > Note that -rt doesnt typically context-switch under contention anymore
> > > > since we introduced adaptive-locks.  Also note that the contention
> > > > against the lock is still contention, regardless of whether you have -rt
> > > > or not.  Its just that the slow-path to handle the contended case for
> > > > -rt is more expensive than mainline.  However, once you have the
> > > > contention as stated, you have already lost.
> > > 
> > > First, contention is not implicitly a bad thing.
> >
> > Its a bad thing when it does not scale.
> 
> You have only one pipe to shove packets into in this case, and for
> your workload multiple cpus are going to be trying to stuff a single
> packet at a time from a single UDP send request.
> 
> There is no added parallelism you can create for that kind of workload
> on that kind of hardware.
> 

Do we have to rule-out per-CPU queues, that aggregate into a master
queue in a batch-wise manner? 

I speculate that might reduce the lock contention by a factor of NCPUs.
I cannot say this would be enough to mitigate the consequent overhead
penalty. 

> It is one of the issues addressed by multiqueue.

Properly tuned adaptive locks, would theoretically perform
near-optimally compared to the mainline case, and would provide better
CPU utilization on very large parallel architectures. 

Sven

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html