lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 7/4] ipc: fine grained locking for semtimedop
From
Date
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 17:15 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Introduce finer grained locking for semtimedop, to handle the
> common case of a program wanting to manipulate one semaphore
> from an array with multiple semaphores.
>
> Each semaphore array has a read/write lock. If something
> complex is going on (manipulation of the array, of multiple
> semaphores in one syscall, etc), the lock is taken in exclusive
> mode.
>
> If the call is a semop manipulating just one semaphore in
> an array with multiple semaphores, the read/write lock for
> the semaphore array is taken in shared (read) mode, and the
> individual semaphore's lock is taken.
>
> On a 24 CPU system, performance numbers with the semop-multi
> test with N threads and N semaphores, look like this:
>
> vanilla Davidlohr's Davidlohr's +
> threads patches rwlock patches
> 10 610652 726325 1783589
> 20 341570 365699 1520453
> 30 288102 307037 1498167
> 40 290714 305955 1612665
> 50 288620 312890 1733453
> 60 289987 306043 1649360
> 70 291298 306347 1723167
> 80 290948 305662 1729545
> 90 290996 306680 1736021
> 100 292243 306700 1773700

Lovely numbers :)

On my laptop:
cpus 4, threads: 256, semaphores: 128, test duration: 30 secs
total operations: 281430894, ops/sec 9381029

+ 20.87% a.out [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sys_semtimedop
+ 8.31% a.out [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ipc_has_perm.isra.21
+ 6.88% a.out [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_read_lock
+ 6.78% a.out [kernel.kallsyms] [k] avc_has_perm_flags
+ 5.26% a.out [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ipcperms
+ 4.91% a.out [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ipc_obtain_object_check
+ 4.69% a.out [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __audit_syscall_exit
+ 4.21% a.out [kernel.kallsyms] [k] copy_user_enhanced_fast_string
+ 3.61% a.out [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock
+ 3.55% a.out [kernel.kallsyms] [k] system_call
+ 3.35% a.out [kernel.kallsyms] [k] do_smart_update
+ 2.77% a.out [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __audit_syscall_entry

But my 8 socket 160 CPU box sure isn't happy. I'm getting all sorts of
issues (sometimes it will boot, sometimes it wont). When it does, linux
will hang as soon as I start my benchmarking:

BUG: soft lockup - CPU#77 stuck for 23s! [oracle:129877]
Modules linked in: fuse autofs4 sunrpc pcc_cpufreq ipv6 dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_mod uinput iTCO_wdt iTCO_vendor_support sg freq_table mperf coretemp kvm_intel kvm crc32c_intel ghash_clmulni_intel microcode pcspkr lpc_ich mfd_core hpilo hpwdt i7core_edac edac_core netxen_nic ext4 mbcache jbd2 sd_mod crc_t10dif aesni_intel ablk_helper cryptd lrw aes_x86_64 xts gf128mul hpsa radeon ttm drm_kms_helper drm i2c_algo_bit i2c_core
CPU 77
Pid: 129877, comm: oracle Tainted: G D W 3.9.0-rc1+ #20 HP ProLiant DL980 G7
RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff812777fa>] [<ffffffff812777fa>] __read_lock_failed+0xa/0x20
RSP: 0018:ffff8b87b8cf9ca8 EFLAGS: 00000297
RAX: ffffc900293c1020 RBX: 000000010007a021 RCX: 000000000000d3a5
RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: ffff8b87b8cf9d58 RDI: ffffc900293c1020
RBP: ffff8b87b8cf9ca8 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff8b87b8cf9c68
R13: ffff8b87b8cf9c68 R14: 0000000000000286 R15: ffff8b87caf10100
FS: 00007f7a689b2700(0000) GS:ffff8987ff9c0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00007fc49426d000 CR3: 00000187cf08f000 CR4: 00000000000007e0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
Process oracle (pid: 129877, threadinfo ffff8b87b8cf8000, task ffff8b87caf10100)
Stack:
ffff8b87b8cf9cb8 ffffffff8155f374 ffff8b87b8cf9ce8 ffffffff81205245
0000000000000001 0000000000090002 00007fff82d3aa08 0000000000000000
ffff8b87b8cf9f78 ffffffff812069e1 0000000000cbc000 ffff8b87b8cf9f38
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff8155f374>] _raw_read_lock+0x14/0x20
[<ffffffff81205245>] sem_lock+0x85/0xa0
[<ffffffff812069e1>] sys_semtimedop+0x521/0x7c0
[<ffffffff81089e2c>] ? task_sched_runtime+0x4c/0x90
[<ffffffff8101c1b3>] ? native_sched_clock+0x13/0x80
[<ffffffff8101b7b9>] ? sched_clock+0x9/0x10
[<ffffffff8108f9ed>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xcd/0x110
[<ffffffff8108914b>] ? update_rq_clock+0x2b/0x50
[<ffffffff81089e2c>] ? task_sched_runtime+0x4c/0x90
[<ffffffff8108fe48>] ? thread_group_cputime+0x88/0xc0
[<ffffffff8108fd1d>] ? cputime_adjust+0x3d/0x90
[<ffffffff8108fece>] ? thread_group_cputime_adjusted+0x4e/0x60
[<ffffffff81568119>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
Code: 90 55 48 89 e5 f0 ff 07 f3 90 83 3f 01 75 f9 f0 ff 0f 75 f1 5d c3 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 55 48 89 e5 f0 48 ff 07 f3 90 <48> 83 3f 01 78 f8 f0 48 ff 0f 78 ee 5d c3 90 90 90 90 90 90 90


> +static inline void sem_unlock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
> + int nsops)
> +{
> + if (nsops == 1 && sma->sem_nsems > 1 && !sma->complex_count) {
> + struct sem *sem = sma->sem_base + sops->sem_num;
> + spin_unlock(&sem->lock);
> + read_unlock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
> + } else
> + write_unlock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
> +}

I believe (haven't tested it yet) the issue could be in sem_unlock() as
we aren't unlocking the RCU read section - before it was just a trivial
ipc_unlock call.

The rest looks good but will look more thoroughly tonight.

Thanks,
Davidlohr



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-07 02:41    [W:0.156 / U:2.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site