Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1441995 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 0/2] ipc/sem.c: sem_lock fixes

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH 0/2] ipc/sem.c: sem_lock fixes Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-07-13 07:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 0/2] ipc/sem.c: sem_lock fixes Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-07-14 00:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 0/2] ipc/sem.c: sem_lock fixes Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-07-14 18:50 +0200

#1441995 — [PATCH 0/2] ipc/sem.c: sem_lock fixes

Hi Andrew, Hi Peter,

next version of the sem_lock() fixes:
The patches are again vs. tip.

Patch 1 is ready for merging, Patch 2 is for review.

- Patch 1 is the patch as in -next since January
  It fixes the race that was found by Felix.
- Patch 2 removes the memory barriers that are part of the qspinlock
  code.
- (The hysteresis patch would be patch 3. The risk of regressions
  can't be ruled out, thus it must wait for benchmarks from real
  workload tests)

Patch 1+2 were one patch, I've split patches so that review and
backporting are simpler.

--
        Manfred

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1442906

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:06:50 +0200 Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrew, Hi Peter,
> 
> next version of the sem_lock() fixes:
> The patches are again vs. tip.
> 
> Patch 1 is ready for merging, Patch 2 is for review.
> 
> - Patch 1 is the patch as in -next since January
>   It fixes the race that was found by Felix.
> - Patch 2 removes the memory barriers that are part of the qspinlock
>   code.
> - (The hysteresis patch would be patch 3. The risk of regressions
>   can't be ruled out, thus it must wait for benchmarks from real
>   workload tests)

I think you're saying that if these two patches cause performance
regressions, we will need ipc-sem-sem_lock-with-hysteresis.patch?

Is that even necessary?  If your testing shows that
ipc-sem-sem_lock-with-hysteresis.patch makes things faster then in it
goes, surely?  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1443593

Hi Andrew,

On 07/14/2016 12:05 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:06:50 +0200 Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew, Hi Peter,
>>
>> next version of the sem_lock() fixes:
>> The patches are again vs. tip.
>>
>> Patch 1 is ready for merging, Patch 2 is for review.
>>
>> - Patch 1 is the patch as in -next since January
>>    It fixes the race that was found by Felix.
>> - Patch 2 removes the memory barriers that are part of the qspinlock
>>    code.
>> - (The hysteresis patch would be patch 3. The risk of regressions
>>    can't be ruled out, thus it must wait for benchmarks from real
>>    workload tests)
> I think you're saying that if these two patches cause performance
> regressions, we will need ipc-sem-sem_lock-with-hysteresis.patch?
No, the two patches will not cause any regressions.

Commit 6062a8dc051 ("ipc,sem: fine grained locking for semtimedop") was 
a huge scalability improvement for 99% of the users, but introduced a 
regression for one workload.
Noone complained about it, so the workload must be rare.
Patch 3 now fixes the regression.
But we live with the introduced regression for 3 years, so give me (and 
Davidlohr, and anyone else who wants to support) some more time.
Also on my TODO list: The queue merge/unmerge logic, i.e. commit 
f269f40ad5ae ("ipc/sem.c: always use only one queue for alter 
operations") might also win from some hysteresis.

My proposal:
- patch 1: merge towards main tree.
- patch 2: needs update. The barrier in sem_lock() is required. I'm not 
yet sure about complexmode_enter(), perhaps with #ifndef 
CONFIG_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS
- patch 3 should wait.

--

     Manfred

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web