| 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: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:31:51 -0400 From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 00/28] Add cmpxchg64_local and cmpxchg_local to each architecture * Andrew Morton (akpm@...ux-foundation.org) wrote: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:52:34 -0400 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote: > > > Here is the patch series for 2.6.23-rc3-mm1 that adds cmpxchg_local, and now > > also cmpxchg64_local, to each architecture. > > How well tested are these on the various architectures? > I compile-tested the patchset on: arm i686 ia64 m68k mips/mipsel powerpc405 powerpc 64 s390 sparc64 sparc x86_64 With various config options (ALL yes, ALL no, all modules, CONFIG_MODULES=yes/no...) Since then, I added the trivial architecture-specific patches: add-cmpxchg64-to-alpha.patch add-cmpxchg64-to-mips.patch add-cmpxchg64-to-powerpc.patch add-cmpxchg64-to-x86_64.patch Which I tested before submitting; mips, powerpc405, powerpc64 and x86_64 build fine. (I have no cross-compiler for alpha though) The rest of the changes, since last thorough architecture-wide compile test, were either architecture specific comments I got from LKML or tested since then because they were architecture agnostic. I must admit though that there are still a few architectures I touch in the cmpxchg_local patches for which I don't have a cross-compiler. But I think the changes are trivial enough, and repetitive enough across architectures, to minimize the build breakages. For runtime testing, I am a bit limited on hardware: I myself have i686 and AMD64, and rely on the LTTng community (and the kernel community) to test the other architectures. Christoph Lameter and I tested the cmpxchg_local with slub on i686 and x86_64. > > When the architecture supports it, it also defines cmpxchg64, but is is not > > defined for architecture that does not support atomic 64 bits updates. > > > > Following performance testing of the slub allocator with cmpxchg_local, these > > patches should prove themselves useful in a near future. > > It would be useful if we could have (numerical) details on these benefits as > part of this patch series description, please. > Sure, they follow at the end of this email (will append to the add-cmpxchg-local-to-generic-for-up.patch description). > Also, it would be good to get the slub patch in there at the same time so that > the new code gets a bit of exercise. > Good point. Christoph, could you please prepare a slub cmpxchg_local patch for the mm tree ? Mathieu > Thanks. Patch add-cmpxchg-local-to-generic-for-up.patch description addendum : * Patch series comments Performance improvements of the fast path goes from a 66% speedup on a Pentium 4 to a 14% speedup on AMD64. Tested-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> Measurements on a Pentium4, 3GHz, Hyperthread. SLUB Performance testing ======================== 1. Kmalloc: Repeatedly allocate then free test * slub HEAD, test 1 kmalloc(8) = 201 cycles kfree = 351 cycles kmalloc(16) = 198 cycles kfree = 359 cycles kmalloc(32) = 200 cycles kfree = 381 cycles kmalloc(64) = 224 cycles kfree = 394 cycles kmalloc(128) = 285 cycles kfree = 424 cycles kmalloc(256) = 411 cycles kfree = 546 cycles kmalloc(512) = 480 cycles kfree = 619 cycles kmalloc(1024) = 623 cycles kfree = 750 cycles kmalloc(2048) = 686 cycles kfree = 811 cycles kmalloc(4096) = 482 cycles kfree = 538 cycles kmalloc(8192) = 680 cycles kfree = 734 cycles kmalloc(16384) = 713 cycles kfree = 843 cycles * Slub HEAD, test 2 kmalloc(8) = 190 cycles kfree = 351 cycles kmalloc(16) = 195 cycles kfree = 360 cycles kmalloc(32) = 201 cycles kfree = 370 cycles kmalloc(64) = 245 cycles kfree = 389 cycles kmalloc(128) = 283 cycles kfree = 413 cycles kmalloc(256) = 409 cycles kfree = 547 cycles kmalloc(512) = 476 cycles kfree = 616 cycles kmalloc(1024) = 628 cycles kfree = 753 cycles kmalloc(2048) = 684 cycles kfree = 811 cycles kmalloc(4096) = 480 cycles kfree = 539 cycles kmalloc(8192) = 661 cycles kfree = 746 cycles kmalloc(16384) = 741 cycles kfree = 856 cycles * cmpxchg_local Slub test kmalloc(8) = 83 cycles kfree = 363 cycles kmalloc(16) = 85 cycles kfree = 372 cycles kmalloc(32) = 92 cycles kfree = 377 cycles kmalloc(64) = 115 cycles kfree = 397 cycles kmalloc(128) = 179 cycles kfree = 438 cycles kmalloc(256) = 314 cycles kfree = 564 cycles kmalloc(512) = 398 cycles kfree = 615 cycles kmalloc(1024) = 573 cycles kfree = 745 cycles kmalloc(2048) = 629 cycles kfree = 816 cycles kmalloc(4096) = 473 cycles kfree = 548 cycles kmalloc(8192) = 659 cycles kfree = 745 cycles kmalloc(16384) = 724 cycles kfree = 843 cycles 2. Kmalloc: alloc/free test * slub HEAD, test 1 kmalloc(8)/kfree = 322 cycles kmalloc(16)/kfree = 318 cycles kmalloc(32)/kfree = 318 cycles kmalloc(64)/kfree = 325 cycles kmalloc(128)/kfree = 318 cycles kmalloc(256)/kfree = 328 cycles kmalloc(512)/kfree = 328 cycles kmalloc(1024)/kfree = 328 cycles kmalloc(2048)/kfree = 328 cycles kmalloc(4096)/kfree = 678 cycles kmalloc(8192)/kfree = 1013 cycles kmalloc(16384)/kfree = 1157 cycles * Slub HEAD, test 2 kmalloc(8)/kfree = 323 cycles kmalloc(16)/kfree = 318 cycles kmalloc(32)/kfree = 318 cycles kmalloc(64)/kfree = 318 cycles kmalloc(128)/kfree = 318 cycles kmalloc(256)/kfree = 328 cycles kmalloc(512)/kfree = 328 cycles kmalloc(1024)/kfree = 328 cycles kmalloc(2048)/kfree = 328 cycles kmalloc(4096)/kfree = 648 cycles kmalloc(8192)/kfree = 1009 cycles kmalloc(16384)/kfree = 1105 cycles * cmpxchg_local Slub test kmalloc(8)/kfree = 112 cycles kmalloc(16)/kfree = 103 cycles kmalloc(32)/kfree = 103 cycles kmalloc(64)/kfree = 103 cycles kmalloc(128)/kfree = 112 cycles kmalloc(256)/kfree = 111 cycles kmalloc(512)/kfree = 111 cycles kmalloc(1024)/kfree = 111 cycles kmalloc(2048)/kfree = 121 cycles kmalloc(4096)/kfree = 650 cycles kmalloc(8192)/kfree = 1042 cycles kmalloc(16384)/kfree = 1149 cycles Tested-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> Measurements on a AMD64 2.0 GHz dual-core In this test, we seem to remove 10 cycles from the kmalloc fast path. On small allocations, it gives a 14% performance increase. kfree fast path also seems to have a 10 cycles improvement. 1. Kmalloc: Repeatedly allocate then free test * cmpxchg_local slub kmalloc(8) = 63 cycles kfree = 126 cycles kmalloc(16) = 66 cycles kfree = 129 cycles kmalloc(32) = 76 cycles kfree = 138 cycles kmalloc(64) = 100 cycles kfree = 288 cycles kmalloc(128) = 128 cycles kfree = 309 cycles kmalloc(256) = 170 cycles kfree = 315 cycles kmalloc(512) = 221 cycles kfree = 357 cycles kmalloc(1024) = 324 cycles kfree = 393 cycles kmalloc(2048) = 354 cycles kfree = 440 cycles kmalloc(4096) = 394 cycles kfree = 330 cycles kmalloc(8192) = 523 cycles kfree = 481 cycles kmalloc(16384) = 643 cycles kfree = 649 cycles * Base kmalloc(8) = 74 cycles kfree = 113 cycles kmalloc(16) = 76 cycles kfree = 116 cycles kmalloc(32) = 85 cycles kfree = 133 cycles kmalloc(64) = 111 cycles kfree = 279 cycles kmalloc(128) = 138 cycles kfree = 294 cycles kmalloc(256) = 181 cycles kfree = 304 cycles kmalloc(512) = 237 cycles kfree = 327 cycles kmalloc(1024) = 340 cycles kfree = 379 cycles kmalloc(2048) = 378 cycles kfree = 433 cycles kmalloc(4096) = 399 cycles kfree = 329 cycles kmalloc(8192) = 528 cycles kfree = 624 cycles kmalloc(16384) = 651 cycles kfree = 737 cycles 2. Kmalloc: alloc/free test * cmpxchg_local slub kmalloc(8)/kfree = 96 cycles kmalloc(16)/kfree = 97 cycles kmalloc(32)/kfree = 97 cycles kmalloc(64)/kfree = 97 cycles kmalloc(128)/kfree = 97 cycles kmalloc(256)/kfree = 105 cycles kmalloc(512)/kfree = 108 cycles kmalloc(1024)/kfree = 105 cycles kmalloc(2048)/kfree = 107 cycles kmalloc(4096)/kfree = 390 cycles kmalloc(8192)/kfree = 626 cycles kmalloc(16384)/kfree = 662 cycles * Base kmalloc(8)/kfree = 116 cycles kmalloc(16)/kfree = 116 cycles kmalloc(32)/kfree = 116 cycles kmalloc(64)/kfree = 116 cycles kmalloc(128)/kfree = 116 cycles kmalloc(256)/kfree = 126 cycles kmalloc(512)/kfree = 126 cycles kmalloc(1024)/kfree = 126 cycles kmalloc(2048)/kfree = 126 cycles kmalloc(4096)/kfree = 384 cycles kmalloc(8192)/kfree = 749 cycles kmalloc(16384)/kfree = 786 cycles Tested-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> I can confirm Mathieus' measurement now: Athlon64: regular NUMA/discontig 1. Kmalloc: Repeatedly allocate then free test 10000 times kmalloc(8) -> 79 cycles kfree -> 92 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(16) -> 79 cycles kfree -> 93 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(32) -> 88 cycles kfree -> 95 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(64) -> 124 cycles kfree -> 132 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(128) -> 157 cycles kfree -> 247 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(256) -> 200 cycles kfree -> 257 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(512) -> 250 cycles kfree -> 277 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(1024) -> 337 cycles kfree -> 314 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(2048) -> 365 cycles kfree -> 330 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(4096) -> 352 cycles kfree -> 240 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(8192) -> 456 cycles kfree -> 340 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(16384) -> 646 cycles kfree -> 471 cycles 2. Kmalloc: alloc/free test 10000 times kmalloc(8)/kfree -> 124 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(16)/kfree -> 124 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(32)/kfree -> 124 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(64)/kfree -> 124 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(128)/kfree -> 124 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(256)/kfree -> 132 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(512)/kfree -> 132 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(1024)/kfree -> 132 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(2048)/kfree -> 132 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(4096)/kfree -> 319 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(8192)/kfree -> 486 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(16384)/kfree -> 539 cycles cmpxchg_local NUMA/discontig 1. Kmalloc: Repeatedly allocate then free test 10000 times kmalloc(8) -> 55 cycles kfree -> 90 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(16) -> 55 cycles kfree -> 92 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(32) -> 70 cycles kfree -> 91 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(64) -> 100 cycles kfree -> 141 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(128) -> 128 cycles kfree -> 233 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(256) -> 172 cycles kfree -> 251 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(512) -> 225 cycles kfree -> 275 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(1024) -> 325 cycles kfree -> 311 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(2048) -> 346 cycles kfree -> 330 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(4096) -> 351 cycles kfree -> 238 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(8192) -> 450 cycles kfree -> 342 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(16384) -> 630 cycles kfree -> 546 cycles 2. Kmalloc: alloc/free test 10000 times kmalloc(8)/kfree -> 81 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(16)/kfree -> 81 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(32)/kfree -> 81 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(64)/kfree -> 81 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(128)/kfree -> 81 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(256)/kfree -> 91 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(512)/kfree -> 90 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(1024)/kfree -> 91 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(2048)/kfree -> 90 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(4096)/kfree -> 318 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(8192)/kfree -> 483 cycles 10000 times kmalloc(16384)/kfree -> 536 cycles -- Mathieu Desnoyers Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal OpenPGP 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