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: <4BF94CAD.5010504@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 23 May 2010 18:41:33 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	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 05/23/2010 06:31 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 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
>    

Ugh, can the timing be normalized per operation?  This is unreadable.

> So locked version seems to be faster than unlocked,
> and share/unshare not to matter?
>    

May be due to the processor using the LOCK operation as a hint to 
reserve the cacheline for a bit.

> 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
>
>    

That's expected.  Hyperthread will be fastest (shared L1), shared L2/L3 
will be slower, cross-socket will suck.


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/