Re: [patch V2 2/7] futex: Hash private futexes per process

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 6 May 2016, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 08:44:04PM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/include/linux/futex_types.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> > +#ifndef _LINUX_FUTEX_TYPES_H
> > +#define _LINUX_FUTEX_TYPES_H
> > +
> > +struct futex_hash_bucket;
> > +
> > +struct futex_hash {
> > +	struct raw_spinlock		lock;
> 
> As it isn't always obvious to everone, it would be good to add a single line
> comment stating why a *raw* spinlock is necessary.

Well. Necessary. It protects the hash pointer and the hash bits. So the scope
is very limited and really does not need the heavy weight version of a
sleeping spinlock in RT.
 
> In this case... I suppose this could lead to some nasty scenarios setting up IPC
> mechanisms between threads if they weren't strictly serialized? Something else?

Sure, we need to serialize attempts to populate the hash. Especially in the
non preallocated case. The thing with raw vs. non raw spinlocks is that the
latter are expensive on RT and if there are just 5 instructions to protect it
does not make any sense to chose the heavy version.
 
> > +config FUTEX_PRIVATE_HASH
> > +	bool
> > +	default FUTEX && SMP
> > +
> 
> So no prompt, not user selectable. If you have SMP, you get this? I think
> automatic is a good call... but is SMP the right criteria, or would NUMA be more
> appropriate since I thought it was keeping the hash local to the NUMA node that
> was the big win?

Yes, we can make it depend on NUMA. I even thought about making a run time
decision for non preallocated ones when the machine is not numa. But for test
coverage I wanted to have it as widely used as possible.
 
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Futexes which use the per process hash have the lower bits cleared
> > +	 */
> > +	if (key->both.offset & (FUT_OFF_INODE | FUT_OFF_MMSHARED))
> > +		return hash_global_futex(key);
> > +
> > +	slot = hash_long(key->private.address, mm->futex_hash.hash_bits);
> > +	return &mm->futex_hash.hash[slot];
> 
> Don't we also need to check if the private hash exists? Per the commit
> description, if we fail to allocate the private hash, we fall back to using the
> global hash...

If we fall back to the global hash, then the lower bits in offset are not
0. So the hash is guaranteed to be available.

Thanks,

	tglx