| 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: <4F16AFB1020000780006D671@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:40:33 +0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: <tglx@...utronix.de>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: fix memset() to support sizes of 4Gb and
above
>>> On 06.01.12 at 12:05, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>> * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com> wrote:
> Would be nice to add support for arch/x86/lib/memset_64.S as
> well, and look at the before/after performance of it.
Got this done, will post the patch soon. However, ...
> For example the kernel's memcpy routine in slightly faster than
> glibc's:
This is an illusion - since the kernel's memcpy_64.S also defines a
"memcpy" (not just "__memcpy"), the static linker resolves the
reference from mem-memcpy.c against this one. Apparent
performance differences rather point at effects like (guessing)
branch prediction (using the second vs the first entry of
routines[]). After fixing this, on my Westmere box glibc's is quite
a bit slower than the unrolled kernel variant (4% fewer
instructions, but about 15% more cycles).
> If such measurements all suggests equal or better performance,
> and if there's no erratum in current CPUs that would make 4G
> string copies dangerous [which your research suggests should be
> fine], i have no principal objection against this patch.
If I interpreted things correctly, there's a tiny win with the changes
(also for not-yet-posted memcpy equivalent):
# Original 3.2:
Performance counter stats for 'perf bench mem memcpy -r x86-64-unrolled' (1000 runs):
5,237,848 instructions # 1.01 insns per cycle ( +- 0.01% )
5,187,712 cycles # 0.000 GHz ( +- 0.10% )
0.003426133 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.30% )
5,236,075 instructions # 1.01 insns per cycle ( +- 0.01% )
5,177,677 cycles # 0.000 GHz ( +- 0.08% )
0.003423426 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.29% )
5,236,887 instructions # 1.01 insns per cycle ( +- 0.01% )
5,180,640 cycles # 0.000 GHz ( +- 0.08% )
0.003410956 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.32% )
Performance counter stats for 'perf bench mem memset -r x86-64-unrolled' (1000 runs):
4,300,600 instructions # 0.97 insns per cycle ( +- 0.02% )
4,442,449 cycles # 0.000 GHz ( +- 0.12% )
0.002976608 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.29% )
4,300,542 instructions # 0.97 insns per cycle ( +- 0.02% )
4,443,480 cycles # 0.000 GHz ( +- 0.10% )
0.002942516 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.36% )
4,300,400 instructions # 0.97 insns per cycle ( +- 0.02% )
4,439,363 cycles # 0.000 GHz ( +- 0.08% )
0.002962733 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.32% )
# Patched (x86_64-mem*.patch):
Performance counter stats for 'perf bench mem memcpy -r x86-64-unrolled' (1000 runs):
5,236,674 instructions # 1.01 insns per cycle ( +- 0.01% )
5,182,292 cycles # 0.000 GHz ( +- 0.07% )
0.003426389 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.29% )
5,235,704 instructions # 1.01 insns per cycle ( +- 0.01% )
5,183,586 cycles # 0.000 GHz ( +- 0.08% )
0.003414827 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.31% )
5,236,240 instructions # 1.01 insns per cycle ( +- 0.01% )
5,192,932 cycles # 0.000 GHz ( +- 0.10% )
0.003404885 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.33% )
Performance counter stats for 'perf bench mem memset -r x86-64-unrolled' (1000 runs):
4,299,811 instructions # 0.97 insns per cycle ( +- 0.02% )
4,442,268 cycles # 0.000 GHz ( +- 0.09% )
0.002957321 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.32% )
4,300,057 instructions # 0.97 insns per cycle ( +- 0.02% )
4,438,804 cycles # 0.000 GHz ( +- 0.09% )
0.002974749 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.29% )
4,299,886 instructions # 0.97 insns per cycle ( +- 0.02% )
4,444,117 cycles # 0.000 GHz ( +- 0.11% )
0.002967353 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.30% )
Jan
--
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