linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] x86/smp function calls: convert x86 tlb flushes to use function 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <48A0D1E6.5030609@goop.org>
Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:57:26 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	x86@...nel.org, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] x86/smp function calls: convert x86 tlb flushes
 to use function calls

Andi Kleen wrote:
> Micro benchmark. Just stick RDTSC around the calls and trigger
> a few remote flushes by e.g. doing mmap/munmap on a multithreaded program
> running on different CPUs.
>   

On a HT 3GHz Xeon, I see a ~35% increase in time (1830ns -> 2500ns), 
averaged over 1000,000 interrupts.  Because it's only 2 cpu, it ends up 
always using the smp_call_function_single path (but via the 
smp_call_function_mask path).

I need to try getting a more-cpu machine running native to do a proper 
test, esp to see if putting kmalloc on that path is very expensive or 
not.  (Is it worth using a kmem_cache?)

    J
--
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/