linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@hp.com>,
	"Low, Jason" <jason.low2@hp.com>,
	linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	aquini@redhat.com, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Move waiting on contended ticket lock out of line
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:38:58 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <512FDC82.2060606@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxbm83Oc2g55868HA2xCytsJzTxWGE0w_pMUzKaU5mJMw@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/28/2013 04:58 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> I'm not seeing any real reason the permission checking couldn't be
> done just under the RCU lock, before we get the spinlock. Except for
> the fact that the "helper" routines in ipc/util.c are written the way
> they are, so it's a layering violation. But I really think that would
> be a *reasonably* low-hanging fruit thing to do.

I could see doing the permission checks under a seq lock.

If the permissions, or any other aspect of the semaphore
array changed while we were doing our permission check,
we can simply jump back to the top of the function and
try again.

Protection against IPC_RMID (removal of the semaphore
block) can probably be done with RCU.

The ugliness of using two kinds of protection may be
necessary, since permissions can be modified in-place,
and RCU does not seem to do in-place modification...

I have been staring at the code for a bit this afternoon,
and have yet to come up with a nicer idea :(

I am always open to suggestions, though :)

> Changing the locking itself to be more fine-grained, and doing it
> across many different ipc semaphores would be a major pain. So I do
> suspect that the work Michel Lespinasse did is probably worth doing
> anyway in addition to at least trying to fix the horrible lack of
> scalability of the code a bit.

That would certainly be the easy fix.


  reply	other threads:[~2013-02-28 22:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-02-06 20:03 [PATCH -v5 0/5] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff w/ auto tuning Rik van Riel
2013-02-06 20:04 ` [PATCH -v5 1/5] x86,smp: move waiting on contended ticket lock out of line Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 12:06   ` [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Move " tip-bot for Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 16:20     ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-13 18:30       ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-14  0:54         ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-02-14  1:31           ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-14  1:56             ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-02-14 10:50         ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-14 16:10           ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-15 15:57             ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-15  6:48         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-02-13 19:08       ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 19:36         ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-13 22:21           ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 22:40             ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-13 23:41               ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-14  1:21                 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-14  1:46                   ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-14 10:43                   ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-27 16:42                   ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-27 17:10                     ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-27 19:53                       ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-27 20:18                         ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-27 21:55                           ` Rik van Riel
     [not found]                             ` <CA+55aFwa0EjGG2NUDYVLVBmXJa2k81YiuNO2yggk=GLRQxhhUQ@mail.gmail.com>
2013-02-28  2:58                               ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-28  3:19                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-28  4:06                                 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-02-28  4:49                                   ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-28 15:13                                     ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-28 18:22                                       ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-28 20:26                                         ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-28 21:14                                           ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-28 21:58                                             ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-28 22:38                                               ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2013-02-28 23:09                                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-03-01  6:42                                                   ` Rik van Riel
2013-03-01 18:18                                                     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-03-01 18:50                                                       ` Rik van Riel
2013-03-01 18:52                                                       ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-06 20:04 ` [PATCH -v5 2/5] x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 12:07   ` [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Implement " tip-bot for Rik van Riel
2013-02-06 20:05 ` [PATCH -v5 3/5] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 12:08   ` [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Auto " tip-bot for Rik van Riel
2013-02-06 20:06 ` [PATCH -v5 4/5] x86,smp: keep spinlock delay values per hashed spinlock address Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 12:09   ` [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Keep " tip-bot for Eric Dumazet
2013-02-06 20:07 ` [PATCH -v5 5/5] x86,smp: limit spinlock delay on virtual machines Rik van Riel
2013-02-07 11:11   ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-07 21:24     ` [PATCH fix " Rik van Riel
2013-02-13 12:10       ` [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Limit " tip-bot for Rik van Riel
2013-02-07 11:25   ` [PATCH -v5 5/5] x86,smp: limit " Stefano Stabellini
2013-02-07 11:59     ` Raghavendra K T
2013-02-07 13:28     ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-06 20:08 ` [PATCH -v5 6/5] x86,smp: add debugging code to track spinlock delay value Rik van Riel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=512FDC82.2060606@redhat.com \
    --to=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aquini@redhat.com \
    --cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
    --cc=davidlohr.bueso@hp.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=walken@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).