linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] Markers Implementation for Preempt RCU Boost Tracing

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:	Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:07:41 +0000
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	"K. Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, ego@...ibm.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Markers Implementation for Preempt RCU Boost Tracing

On Mon 2008-01-07 13:59:54, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar (mingo@...e.hu) wrote:
> > 
> > * Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > [...] this is a general policy matter. It is _so much easier_ to add 
> > > > markers if they _can_ have near-zero overhead (as in 1-2 
> > > > instructions). Otherwise we'll keep arguing about it, especially if 
> > > > any is added to performance-critical codepath. (where we are 
> > > > counting instructions)
> > > 
> > > The effect of the immediate-values patch, combined with gcc 
> > > CFLAGS+=-freorder-blocks, *is* to keep the overhead at 1-2 
> > > dcache-impact-free instructions.  The register saves, parameter 
> > > evaluation, the function call, can all be moved out of line.
> > 
> > well, -freorder-blocks seems to be default-enabled at -O2 on gcc 4.2, so 
> > we should already be getting that, right?
> > 
> > There's one thing that would make out-of-line tracepoints have a lot 
> > less objectionable to me: right now the 'out of line' area is put to the 
> > end of functions. That splinters the kernel image with inactive, rarely 
> > taken areas of code - blowing up its icache footprint considerably. For 
> > example sched.o has ~100 functions, with the average function size being 
> > 200 bytes. At 64 bytes L1 cacheline size that's a 10-20% icache waste 
> > already.
> 
> Hrm, I agree this can be a problem on architectures with more standard
> associative icaches, but aren't most x86_64 machines (and modern x86_32)
> using an instruction trace cache instead ? This makes the problem
> irrelevant.
> 
> But I agree that, as Frank proposed, -freorder-blocks-and-partition
> could help us in that matter for the architectures using an associative
> L1 icache.

I thought trace cache died with P4?
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/