linux-kernel - Re: Performance overhead of get_cycles

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: <475E9B4F.2090008@qumranet.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:14:39 +0200
From:	Dor Laor <dor.laor@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	tglx@...utronix.de,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kvm-devel <kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: Performance overhead of get_cycles_sync

Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Dor Laor <dor.laor@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ingo, Thomas,
> >
> > In the latest kernel (2.6.24-rc3) I noticed a drastic performance
> > decrease for KVM networking. The reason is many vmexit (exit reason is
> > cpuid instruction) caused by calls to gettimeofday that uses tsc
> > sourceclock. read_tsc calls get_cycles_sync which might call cpuid in
> > order to serialize the cpu.
> >
> > Can you explain why the cpu needs to be serialized for every gettime
> > call? Do we need to be that accurate? (It will also slightly improve
> > physical hosts). I believe you have a reason and the answer is yes. In
> > that case can you replace the serializing instruction with an
> > instruction that does not trigger vmexit? Maybe use 'ltr' for example?
>
> hm, where exactly does it call CPUID?
>
>         Ingo
>
Here, commented out [include/asm-x86/tsc.h]:
/* Like get_cycles, but make sure the CPU is synchronized. */
static __always_inline cycles_t get_cycles_sync(void)
{
    unsigned long long ret;
    unsigned eax, edx;

    /*
       * Use RDTSCP if possible; it is guaranteed to be synchronous
      * and doesn't cause a VMEXIT on Hypervisors
     */
    alternative_io(ASM_NOP3, ".byte 0x0f,0x01,0xf9", X86_FEATURE_RDTSCP,
               ASM_OUTPUT2("=a" (eax), "=d" (edx)),
               "a" (0U), "d" (0U) : "ecx", "memory");
    ret = (((unsigned long long)edx) << 32) | ((unsigned long long)eax);
    if (ret)
        return ret;

    /*
     * Don't do an additional sync on CPUs where we know
     * RDTSC is already synchronous:
     */
//    alternative_io("cpuid", ASM_NOP2, X86_FEATURE_SYNC_RDTSC,
//              "=a" (eax), "0" (1) : "ebx","ecx","edx","memory");
    rdtscll(ret);

    return ret;
}

--
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/