| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110722011747.GB2807@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:17:48 -0400 From: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com> To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>, Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>, Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, rth@...hat.com Subject: Re: [RFT][patch 17/18] sched: use jump labels to reduce overhead when bandwidth control is inactive On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 05:57:31PM -0700, Paul Turner wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com> wrote: > > rth@...hat.com > > Bcc: > > Subject: Re: [RFT][patch 17/18] sched: use jump labels to reduce overhead > > when bandwidth control is inactive > > Reply-To: > > In-Reply-To: <20110721184758.403388616@...gle.com> > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 09:43:42AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote: > >> So I'm seeing some strange costs associated with jump_labels; while on paper > >> the branches and instructions retired improves (as expected) we're taking an > >> unexpected hit in IPC. > >> > >> [From the initial mail we have workloads: > >> mkdir -p /cgroup/cpu/test > >> echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/cpu/test (only cpu,cpuacct mounted) > >> (W1) taskset -c 0 perf stat --repeat 50 -e instructions,cycles,branches bash -c "for ((i=0;i<5;i++)); do $(dirname $0)/pipe-test 20000; done" > >> (W2)taskset -c 0 perf stat --repeat 50 -e instructions,cycles,branches bash -c "$(dirname $0)/pipe-test 100000;true" > >> (W3)taskset -c 0 perf stat --repeat 50 -e instructions,cycles,branches bash -c "$(dirname $0)/pipe-test 100000;" > >> ] > >> > >> To make some of the figures more clear: > >> > >> Legend: > >> !BWC = tip + bwc, BWC compiled out > >> BWC = tip + bwc > >> BWC_JL = tip + bwc + jump label (this patch) > >> > >> > >> Now, comparing under W1 we see: > >> W1: BWC vs BWC_JL > >> instructions cycles branches elapsed > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> clovertown [BWC] 845934117 974222228 152715407 0.419014188 [baseline] > >> +unconstrained 857963815 (+1.42) 1007152750 (+3.38) 153140328 (+0.28) 0.433186926 (+3.38) [rel] > >> +10000000000/1000: 876937753 (+2.55) 1033978705 (+5.65) 160038434 (+3.59) 0.443638365 (+5.66) [rel] > >> +10000000000/1000000: 880276838 (+3.08) 1036176245 (+6.13) 160683878 (+4.15) 0.444577244 (+6.14) [rel] > >> > >> barcelona [BWC] 820573353 748178486 148161233 0.342122850 [baseline] > >> +unconstrained 817011602 (-0.43) 759838181 (+1.56) 145951513 (-1.49) 0.347462571 (+1.56) [rel] > >> +10000000000/1000: 830109086 (+0.26) 770451537 (+1.67) 151228902 (+1.08) 0.350824677 (+1.65) [rel] > >> +10000000000/1000000: 830196206 (+0.30) 770704213 (+2.27) 151250413 (+1.12) 0.350962182 (+2.28) [rel] > >> > >> westmere [BWC] 802533191 694415157 146071233 0.194428018 [baseline] > >> +unconstrained 799057936 (-0.43) 751384496 (+8.20) 143875513 (-1.50) 0.211182620 (+8.62) [rel] > >> +10000000000/1000: 812033785 (+0.27) 761469084 (+8.51) 149134146 (+1.09) 0.212149229 (+8.28) [rel] > >> +10000000000/1000000: 811912834 (+0.27) 757842988 (+7.45) 149113291 (+1.09) 0.211364804 (+7.30) [rel] > >> e.g. Barcelona issues ~0.43% less instructions, for a total of 817011602, in > >> the unconstrained case with BWC. > >> > >> > >> Where "unconstrained, 10000000000/1000, 10000000000/10000" are the on > >> measurements for BWC_JL, with (%d) being the relative difference to their > >> BWC counterparts. > >> > >> W1: BWC vs BWC_JL is very similar. > >> BWC vs BWC_JL > >> clovertown [BWC] 985732031 1283113452 175621212 1.375905653 > >> +unconstrained 979242938 (-0.66) 1288971141 (+0.46) 172122546 (-1.99) 1.389795165 (+1.01) [rel] > >> +10000000000/1000: 999886468 (+0.33) 1296597143 (+1.13) 180554004 (+1.62) 1.392576770 (+1.18) [rel] > >> +10000000000/1000000: 999034223 (+0.11) 1293925500 (+0.57) 180413829 (+1.39) 1.391041338 (+0.94) [rel] > >> > >> barcelona [BWC] 982139920 1078757792 175417574 1.069537049 > >> +unconstrained 965443672 (-1.70) 1075377223 (-0.31) 170215844 (-2.97) 1.045595065 (-2.24) [rel] > >> +10000000000/1000: 989104943 (+0.05) 1100836668 (+0.52) 178837754 (+1.22) 1.058730316 (-1.77) [rel] > >> +10000000000/1000000: 987627489 (-0.32) 1095843758 (-0.17) 178567411 (+0.84) 1.056100899 (-2.28) [rel] > >> > >> westmere [BWC] 918633403 896047900 166496917 0.754629182 > >> +unconstrained 914740541 (-0.42) 903906801 (+0.88) 163652848 (-1.71) 0.758050332 (+0.45) [rel] > >> +10000000000/1000: 927517377 (-0.41) 952579771 (+5.67) 170173060 (+0.75) 0.771193786 (+2.43) [rel] > >> +10000000000/1000000: 914676985 (-0.89) 936106277 (+3.81) 167683288 (+0.22) 0.764973632 (+1.38) [rel] > >> > >> Now this is rather odd, almost across the board we're seeing the expected > >> drops in instructions and branches, yet we appear to be paying a heavy IPC > >> price. The fact that wall-time has scaled equivalently with cycles roughly > >> rules out the cycles counter being off. > >> if i understand your results, for barcelona you did see an improvement in cycles and eslapsed time with jump labels for unconstrained? > >> We are seeing the expected behavior in the bandwidth enabled case; > >> specifically the <jl=jmp><ret><cond><ret> blocks are taking an extra branch > >> and instruction which shows up on all the numbers above. > >> > >> With respect to compiler mangling the text is essentially unchanged in size. > >> One lurking suspicion is whether the inserted nops have perturbed some of the > >> jmp/branch alignments? hmmmm....not sure, I'm adding Richard Henderson, to the 'cc list, who worked on the 'asm goto' in gcc. > >> > >> text data bss dec hex filename > >> 7277206 2827256 2125824 12230286 ba9e8e vmlinux.jump_label > >> 7276886 2826744 2125824 12229454 ba9b4e vmlinux.no_jump_label > >> the other thing here is that vmlinux.jump_label includes the extra kernel/jump_label.o file, so you can sort of subtract the text size of that file to do a fair comparison. Also, I would have expected the data section to have increased more with jump labels enabled. Are tracepoints disabled (a current user of jump labels). > >> I have checked to make sure that the right instructions are being patched in > >> at run-time. I've also pulled a fully patched jump_label out of the kernel > >> into a userspace test (and benchmarked it directly under perf). The results > >> here are also exactly as expected. > >> > >> e.g. > >> Performance counter stats for './jump_test': > >> 1,500,839,002 instructions, 300,147,081 branches 702,468,404 cycles > >> Performance counter stats for './jump_test 1': > >> 2,001,014,609 instructions, 400,177,192 branches 901,758,219 cycles > >> what no-op did you use in userspace? I wouldn't think the no-op choice would make any difference though...At compile time we use a 'jmp 0', and then at boot we dynamically patch the 'jmp 0' with the no-op we think works best... thanks, -Jason > >> Overall if we can fix the IPC the benefit in the globally unconstrained case > >> looks really good. > >> > >> Any thoughts Jason? > >> > > > > Do you have CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE set? I know that when > > CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE is not set, the compiler can make the code > > more optimal. > > > > Ah I should have mentioned that was one of the holes I stared down: > > Builds were -O2 (gcc-4.6.1) and > $ zcat /proc/config.gz | grep CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE > # CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE is not set > > Same kernel image across all platforms. > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > -Jason > > > -- > 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/ -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists