linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i386-pda UP optimization

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]

Message-id: <4563766E.8070408@cosmosbay.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:58:06 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	akpm@...l.org, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386-pda UP optimization

Jeremy Fitzhardinge a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> I did *lot* of reboots of my Dell D610 machine, with some trivial benchmarks 
>> using : pipe/write()/read, umask(), or getppid(), using or not oprofile.
>>
>> I managed to avoid reloading %gs in sysenter_entry .
>> (avoiding the two instructions : movl $(__KERNEL_PDA), %edx; movl %edx, %gs
>>
>> I could not avoid reloading %gs in system_call, I dont know why, but modern 
>> glibc use sysenter so I dont care :)
>>
>> I confirm I got better results with my patched kernel in all tests I've done.
>>
>> umask : 12.64 s instead of 12.90 s
>> getppid : 13.37 s instead of 13.72 s
>> pipe/read/write : 9.10 s instead of 9.52 s
>>
>> (I got very different results in umask() bench, patching it not to use xchg(), 
>> since this instruction is expensive on x86 and really change oprofile 
>> results. I will submit a patch for this.
>>   
> 
> Could you go into more detail about what you're actually measuring
> here?  Is it 10,000,000 loops of the single syscall?  pipe/read/write
> suggests that you're doing at least 2 syscalls per loop, but it takes
> the smallest elapsed time.

for umask/getppid(), its a basic loop with 100.000.000 iterations
for read/write(), loop with 10.000.000 iterations
> 
> What are you using as your time reference?  Real time?  Process time?
> 

elapsed time (/usr/bin/time ./prog)
10 runs, and the minimum time is taken.

> For umask/getppid, assuming you're just running 1e7 iterations, you're
> seeing a difference of 25 and 35ns per iteration difference.  I wonder
> why it would be different for different syscalls; I would expect it to
> be a constant overhead either way.  Certainly these numbers are much
> larger than I saw when I benchmarked pda-vs-nopda using lmbench's null
> syscall (getppid) test; I saw an overall 9ns difference in null syscall
> time on my Core Duo run at 1GHz.  What's your CPU and speed?

Its a 1.6GHz Pentium-M CPU (Dell D610)

> 
> One possibility is a cache miss on the gdt while reloading %gs.  I've
> been planning on a patch to rearrange the gdt in order to pack all the
> commonly used segment descriptors into one or two cache lines so that
> all the segment register reloads can be done with a minimum of cache
> misses.  It would be interesting for you to replace the:
> 
>     movl $(__KERNEL_PDA), %edx; movl %edx, %gs
> 
> with an appropriate read of the gdt entry, hm, which is a bit complex to
> find.
> 

Hum... Do you mean a cache miss every time we do a syscall ? What could 
invalidate this cache exactly ?


-
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/