All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	dhowells@redhat.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Memory transaction instructions
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:05:43 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2496131.1674032743@warthog.procyon.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whjFwzEq0u04=n=t7-kNJdX0HkAOjAMjmLXDDycJ+j9yQ@mail.gmail.com>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> And for the kernel, where we don't have bad locking, and where we
> actually use fine-grained locks that are _near_ the data that we are
> locking (the lockref of the dcache is obviously one example of that,
> but the skbuff queue you mention is almost certainly exactly the same
> situation): the lock is right by the data that the lock protects, and
> the "shared lock cacheline" model simply does not work. You'll bounce
> the data, and most likely you'll also touch the same lock cacheline
> too.

Yeah.  The reason I was actually wondering about them was if it would be
possible to avoid the requirement to disable interrupts/softirqs to, say,
modify the skbuff queue.  On some arches actually disabling irqs is quite a
heavy operation (I think this is/was true on ppc64, for example; it certainly
was on frv) and it was necessary to "emulate" the disablement.

David


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	tony.luck@intel.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Memory transaction instructions
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:05:43 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2496131.1674032743@warthog.procyon.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whjFwzEq0u04=n=t7-kNJdX0HkAOjAMjmLXDDycJ+j9yQ@mail.gmail.com>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> And for the kernel, where we don't have bad locking, and where we
> actually use fine-grained locks that are _near_ the data that we are
> locking (the lockref of the dcache is obviously one example of that,
> but the skbuff queue you mention is almost certainly exactly the same
> situation): the lock is right by the data that the lock protects, and
> the "shared lock cacheline" model simply does not work. You'll bounce
> the data, and most likely you'll also touch the same lock cacheline
> too.

Yeah.  The reason I was actually wondering about them was if it would be
possible to avoid the requirement to disable interrupts/softirqs to, say,
modify the skbuff queue.  On some arches actually disabling irqs is quite a
heavy operation (I think this is/was true on ppc64, for example; it certainly
was on frv) and it was necessary to "emulate" the disablement.

David


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	tony.luck@intel.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Memory transaction instructions
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:05:43 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2496131.1674032743@warthog.procyon.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whjFwzEq0u04=n=t7-kNJdX0HkAOjAMjmLXDDycJ+j9yQ@mail.gmail.com>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> And for the kernel, where we don't have bad locking, and where we
> actually use fine-grained locks that are _near_ the data that we are
> locking (the lockref of the dcache is obviously one example of that,
> but the skbuff queue you mention is almost certainly exactly the same
> situation): the lock is right by the data that the lock protects, and
> the "shared lock cacheline" model simply does not work. You'll bounce
> the data, and most likely you'll also touch the same lock cacheline
> too.

Yeah.  The reason I was actually wondering about them was if it would be
possible to avoid the requirement to disable interrupts/softirqs to, say,
modify the skbuff queue.  On some arches actually disabling irqs is quite a
heavy operation (I think this is/was true on ppc64, for example; it certainly
was on frv) and it was necessary to "emulate" the disablement.

David


  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-01-18  9:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 108+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-01-12 23:36 lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13  0:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:13   ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:13   ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:30   ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13  0:30     ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13  0:30     ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13  0:45     ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:45       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:45       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  7:55     ` ia64 removal (was: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax) Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13  7:55       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13  7:55       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 16:17       ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 16:17         ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 16:17         ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 20:49       ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 20:49         ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 20:49         ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:03         ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:03           ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:03           ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:04           ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:04             ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:04             ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:05       ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 21:05         ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 21:05         ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 23:25         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 23:25           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 23:25           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-14 11:24           ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:24             ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:24             ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28             ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28               ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28               ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15  0:27               ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15  0:27                 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15  0:27                 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15 12:04                 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15 12:04                   ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15 12:04                   ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-16  9:42                   ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:42                     ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:42                     ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:41                 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:41                   ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:41                   ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 13:28                   ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 13:28                     ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 13:28                     ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16  9:40               ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:40                 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:40                 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:37             ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:37               ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:37               ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:32           ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:32             ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:32             ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 10:09             ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-16 10:09               ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-16 10:09               ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13  1:12   ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13  1:12     ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13  1:12     ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13  4:08     ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  4:08       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  4:08       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  9:46     ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13  9:46       ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13  9:46       ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13  3:20   ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  3:20     ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  3:20     ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  4:15     ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  4:15       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  4:15       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  5:36       ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  5:36         ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  5:36         ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-16 14:08     ` Memory transaction instructions David Howells
2023-01-16 14:08       ` David Howells
2023-01-16 15:09       ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 15:09         ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 15:09         ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 16:59       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-16 16:59         ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-16 16:59         ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-18  9:05       ` David Howells [this message]
2023-01-18  9:05         ` David Howells
2023-01-18  9:05         ` David Howells
2023-01-19  1:41         ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-19  1:41           ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-19  1:41           ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 10:23   ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 10:23     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 10:23     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 18:44   ` [PATCH] lockref: stop doing cpu_relax in the cmpxchg loop Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 18:44     ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 18:44     ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 21:47     ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:47       ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:47       ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 23:31       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 23:31         ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 23:31         ` Linus Torvalds

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=2496131.1674032743@warthog.procyon.org.uk \
    --to=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jan.glauber@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.