linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: Optimize intel_pmu_pebs_fixup

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 26 Oct 2013 12:36:52 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>, jmario@...hat.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: Optimize intel_pmu_pebs_fixup_ip()


* Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:52:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:48:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > I'll also make sure to test we actually hit the fault path
> > > by concurrently running something like:
> > > 
> > >  while :; echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ; done
> > > 
> > > while doing perf top or so.. 
> > 
> > So the below appears to work; I've ran:
> > 
> >   while :; do echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; sleep 1; done &
> >   while :; do make O=defconfig-build/ clean; perf record -a -g fp -e cycles:pp make O=defconfig-build/ -s -j64; done
> > 
> > And verified that the if (in_nmi()) trace_printk() was visible in the
> > trace output verifying we indeed took the fault from the NMI code.
> > 
> > I've had this running for ~ 30 minutes or so and the machine is still
> > healthy.
> > 
> > Don, can you give this stuff a spin on your system?
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> I finally had a chance to run this on my machine.  From my 
> testing, it looks good.  Better performance numbers.  I think my 
> longest latency went from 300K cycles down to 150K cycles and very 
> few of those (most are under 100K cycles).

Btw., do we know where those ~100k-150k cycles are spent 
specifically? 100k cycles is still an awful lot of time to spend in 
NMI context ...

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/