linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/9] Conditional Calls

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:	Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:51:04 +0200
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/9] Conditional Calls - Architecture Independent Code

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 11:57:24AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi Adrian,

Hi Mathieu,

>...
> > 2. What is the real-life performance improvement?
> > That micro benchmarks comparing cache hits with cache misses give great 
> > looking numbers is obvious.
> > But what will be the performance improvement in real workloads after the
> > functions you plan to make conditional according to question 1 have been 
> > made conditional?
> 
> Hrm, I am trying to get interesting numbers out of lmbench: I just ran a
> test on a kernel sprinkled with about 50 markers at important sites
> (LTTng markers: system call entry/exit, traps, interrupt handlers, ...).
> The markers are compiled-in, but in "disabled state". Since the markers
> re-use the cond_call infrastructure, each marker has its own cond_call.
>...
> The results are that we really cannot tell that one is faster/slower
> than the other; the standard deviation is much higher than the
> difference between the two situations.
> 
> Note that lmbench is a workload that will not trigger much L1 cache
> stress, since it repeats the same tests many times. Do you have any
> suggestion of a test that would be more representative of a real
> diversified (in term of in-kernel locality of reference) workload ?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think 50 markers couldn't ever 
result in a visible change:

You need a change that is big enough that it has a measurable influence 
on the cache hit ratio.

I don't think you could get any measurable influence unless you get into 
areas where > 10% of all code are conditional. And that's a percentage 
I wouldn't consider being realistically.

And one big disadvantage of your implementation is the dependency on 
MODULES. If you build all driver statically into the kernel, switching 
from CONFIG_MODULES=y to CONFIG_MODULES=n already gives you for free a 
functionally equivalent kernel that is smaller by at about 8% (depending 
on the .config).

My impression is that your patches would add an infrastructure for a 
nice sounding idea that will never have any real life effect.

> Thanks,
> 
> Mathieu

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/