linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] mm: handle_speculative

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20100107100054.e56b709a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:00:54 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	"hugh.dickins" <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] mm: handle_speculative_fault()

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 01:39:17 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> >
> >      9.08%  multi-fault-all  [kernel]                  [k] down_read_trylock
<snip>
> That way, it will do the cmpxchg first, and if it wasn't unlocked and had 
> other readers active, it will end up doing an extra cmpxchg, but still 
> hopefully avoid the extra bus cycles.
> 
> So it might be worth testing this trivial patch on top of my other one.
> 
Test: on 8-core/2-socket x86-64
  while () {
	touch memory
	barrier
	madvice DONTNEED all range by cpu 0
	barrier
  }

<Before> (cut from my post)
> [root@...extal memory]#  /root/bin/perf stat -e page-faults,cache-misses --repeat 5 ./multi-fault-all 8
> 
>  Performance counter stats for './multi-fault-all 8' (5 runs):
> 
>        33029186  page-faults                ( +-   0.146% )
>       348698659  cache-misses               ( +-   0.149% )
> 
>    60.002876268  seconds time elapsed   ( +-   0.001% )
>     41.51%  multi-fault-all  [kernel]                  [k] clear_page_c
>      9.08%  multi-fault-all  [kernel]                  [k] down_read_trylock
>      6.23%  multi-fault-all  [kernel]                  [k] up_read
>      6.17%  multi-fault-all  [kernel]                  [k] __mem_cgroup_try_charg


<After>
[root@...extal memory]#  /root/bin/perf stat -e page-faults,cache-misses --repeat 5 ./multi-fault-all 8

 Performance counter stats for './multi-fault-all 8' (5 runs):

       33782787  page-faults                ( +-   2.650% )
      332753197  cache-misses               ( +-   0.477% )

   60.003984337  seconds time elapsed   ( +-   0.004% )

# Samples: 1014408915089
#
# Overhead          Command             Shared Object  Symbol
# ........  ...............  ........................  ......
#
    44.42%  multi-fault-all  [kernel]                  [k] clear_page_c
     7.73%  multi-fault-all  [kernel]                  [k] down_read_trylock
     6.65%  multi-fault-all  [kernel]                  [k] __mem_cgroup_try_char
     6.15%  multi-fault-all  [kernel]                  [k] up_read
     4.87%  multi-fault-all  [kernel]                  [k] handle_mm_fault
     3.70%  multi-fault-all  [kernel]                  [k] __rmqueue
     3.69%  multi-fault-all  [kernel]                  [k] __mem_cgroup_commit_c
     2.35%  multi-fault-all  [kernel]                  [k] bad_range


yes, it seems slightly improved, at least on this test.
but page-fault-throughput test score is within error range.


Thanks,
-Kame



--
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/