| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 20:07:32 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
To: Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>
Cc: Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
prasanna@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>,
Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.com>,
Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
systemtap@...rces.redhat.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
"Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Performance analysis of Linux Kernel Markers 0.20 for 2.6.17
* Nicholas Miell (nmiell@...cast.net) wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 11:33 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Nicholas Miell (nmiell@...cast.net) wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 23:42 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > * Nicholas Miell (nmiell@...cast.net) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Has anyone done any performance measurements with the "regular function
> > > > > call replaced by a NOP" type of marker?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here it is (on the same setup as the other tests : Pentium 4, 3 GHz) :
> > > >
> > > > * Execute an empty loop
> > > >
> > > > - Without marker
> > > > NR_LOOPS : 10000000
> > > > time delta (cycles): 15026497
> > > > cycles per loop : 1.50
> > > >
> > > > - With 5 NOPs
> > > > NR_LOOPS : 100000
> > > > time delta (cycles): 300157
> > > > cycles per loop : 3.00
> > > > added cycles per loop for nops : 3.00-1.50 = 1.50
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > * Execute a loop of memcpy 4096 bytes
> > > >
> > > > - Without marker
> > > > NR_LOOPS : 10000
> > > > time delta (cycles): 12981555
> > > > cycles per loop : 1298.16
> > > >
> > > > - With 5 NOPs
> > > > NR_LOOPS : 10000
> > > > time delta (cycles): 12983925
> > > > cycles per loop : 1298.39
> > > > added cycles per loop for nops : 0.23
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If we compare this approach to the jump-over-call markers (in cycles per loop) :
> > > >
> > > > NOPs Jump over call generic Jump over call optimized
> > > > empty loop 1.50 1.17 2.50
> > > > memcpy 0.23 2.12 0.07
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mathieu
> > >
> > > What about with two NOPs (".byte 0x66, 0x66, 0x90, 0x66, 0x90" - this
> > > should work with everything) or one (".byte 0x0f, 0x1f, 0x44, 0x00,
> > > 0x00" - AFAIK, this should work with P6 or newer).
> > >
> > > (Sorry, I should have mentioned this the first time.)
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The tests I made were with :
> > #define GENERIC_NOP1 ".byte 0x90\n"
> > #define GENERIC_NOP4 ".byte 0x8d,0x74,0x26,0x00\n"
> > #define GENERIC_NOP5 GENERIC_NOP1 GENERIC_NOP4
> >
> > Now with the tests you ask for :
> >
> > * Execute an empty loop
> > - 2 NOPs ".byte 0x66, 0x66, 0x90, 0x66, 0x90"
> > NR_LOOPS : 100000
> > time delta (cycles): 200190
> > cycles per loop : 2.00
> > cycles per loop for nops : 2.00-1.50 = 0.50
> >
> > - 1 NOP "0x0f, 0x1f, 0x44, 0x00, 0x00"
> > NR_LOOPS : 100000
> > time delta (cycles): 300172
> > cycles per loop : 3.00
> > cycles per loop for nops : 3.00-1.50 = 2.50
> >
> >
> > * Execute a loop of memcpy 4096 bytes
> > - 2 NOPs ".byte 0x66, 0x66, 0x90, 0x66, 0x90"
> > NR_LOOPS : 10000
> > time delta (cycles): 12981293
> > cycles per loop : 1298.13
> > cycles per loop for nops : 1298.16-1298.13=0.03
> >
> > - 1 NOP "0x0f, 0x1f, 0x44, 0x00, 0x00"
> > NR_LOOPS : 10000
> > time delta (cycles): 12985590
> > cycles per loop : 1298.56
> > cycles per loop for nops : 0.43
> >
>
> To summarize in chart form:
>
> JoC JoCo 2NOP 1NOP
> empty loop 1.17 2.50 0.50 2.50
> memcpy 2.12 0.07 0.03 0.43
>
> JoC = Jump over call - generic
> JoCo = Jump over call - optimized
> 2NOP = "data16 data16 nop; data16 nop"
> 1NOP = NOP with ModRM
>
> I left out your "nop; lea 0(%esi), %esi" because it isn't actually a NOP
> (the CPU will do actual work even if it has no effect, and on AMD64,
> that insn is "nop; lea 0(%rdi), %esi", which will truncate RDI+0 to fit
> 32-bits.)
>
> The performance of NOP with ModRM doesn't suprise me -- AFAIK, only the
> most recent of Intel CPUs actually special case that to be a true
> no-work-done NOP.
>
> It'd be nice to see the results of "jump to an out-of-line call with the
> jump replaced by a NOP", but even if it performs well (and it should,
> the argument passing and stack alignment overhead won't be executed in
> the disabled probe case), actually using it in practice would be
> difficult without compiler support (call instructions are easy to find
> thanks to their relocations, which local jumps don't have).
>
Hi,
Just to make sure we see things the same way : the JoC approach is similar to
the out-of-line call in that the argument passing and stack alignment are not
executed when the probe is disabled.
Mathieu
OpenPGP public key: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg
Key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists