linux-kernel - Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] virtio: put last seen used index into ring itself

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: <20100523153134.GA14646@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 23 May 2010 18:31:34 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	qemu-devel@...gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] virtio: put last seen used index into
	ring itself

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 02:38:16PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 02:31:50 pm Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 May 2010 05:36:42 pm Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > > Note that this is a exclusive->shared->exclusive bounce only, too.
> > > >    
> > > 
> > > A bounce is a bounce.
> > 
> > I tried to measure this to show that you were wrong, but I was only able
> > to show that you're right.  How annoying.  Test code below.
> 
> This time for sure!


What do you see?
On my laptop:
	[mst@...k testring]$ ./rusty1 share 0 1
	CPU 1: share cacheline: 2820410 usec
	CPU 0: share cacheline: 2823441 usec
	[mst@...k testring]$ ./rusty1 unshare 0 1
	CPU 0: unshare cacheline: 2783014 usec
	CPU 1: unshare cacheline: 2782951 usec
	[mst@...k testring]$ ./rusty1 lockshare 0 1
	CPU 1: lockshare cacheline: 1888495 usec
	CPU 0: lockshare cacheline: 1888544 usec
	[mst@...k testring]$ ./rusty1 lockunshare 0 1
	CPU 0: lockunshare cacheline: 1889854 usec
	CPU 1: lockunshare cacheline: 1889804 usec
So locked version seems to be faster than unlocked,
and share/unshare not to matter?

same on a workstation:
[root@...19 ~]# ./rusty1 unshare 0 1
CPU 0: unshare cacheline: 6037002 usec
CPU 1: unshare cacheline: 6036977 usec
[root@...19 ~]# ./rusty1 lockunshare 0 1
CPU 1: lockunshare cacheline: 5734362 usec
CPU 0: lockunshare cacheline: 5734389 usec
[root@...19 ~]# ./rusty1 lockshare 0 1
CPU 1: lockshare cacheline: 5733537 usec
CPU 0: lockshare cacheline: 5733564 usec

using another pair of CPUs gives a more drastic
results:

[root@...19 ~]# ./rusty1 lockshare 0 2
CPU 2: lockshare cacheline: 4226990 usec
CPU 0: lockshare cacheline: 4227038 usec
[root@...19 ~]# ./rusty1 lockunshare 0 2
CPU 0: lockunshare cacheline: 4226707 usec
CPU 2: lockunshare cacheline: 4226662 usec
[root@...19 ~]# ./rusty1 unshare 0 2
CPU 0: unshare cacheline: 14815048 usec
CPU 2: unshare cacheline: 14815006 usec


The share test seems to never finish on the
workstation. I am debugging this.

-- 
MST
--
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/