linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Extend mwait idle to optimize away IPIs when possible

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: <CABeCy1YX7ps3sKAv_A0AtQfNc3WSdxrAPqLfdvSXTiea5JgPZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:39:46 -0800
From:	Venki Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
To:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Aaron Durbin <adurbin@...gle.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Extend mwait idle to optimize away IPIs when possible

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 12:42 -0800, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
>> * Lower overhead on Async IPI send path. Measurements on Westmere based
>>   systems show savings on "no wait" smp_call_function_single with idle
>>   target CPU (as measured on the sender side).
>>   local socket smp_call_func cost goes from ~1600 to ~1200 cycles
>>   remote socket smp_call_func cost goes from ~2000 to ~1800 cycles
>
> Interesting that savings in the remote socket is less compared to the
> local socket.

Yes. I was not sure whether it has something to do with mwait/IPI
wakeups work in hardware or it has something to do with C-state the
target CPU is woken out of.

>
>> +int smp_need_ipi(int cpu)
>> +{
>> +     int oldval;
>> +
>> +     if (!system_using_cpu_idle_sync || cpu == smp_processor_id())
>> +             return 1;
>> +
>> +     oldval = atomic_cmpxchg(&per_cpu(cpu_idle_sync, cpu),
>> +                             CPU_STATE_IDLE, CPU_STATE_WAKING);
>
> To avoid too many cache line bounces for the case when the cpu is in the
> running state, we should do a read to check if the state is in idle
> before going ahead with the locked operation?
>

Agree. Will add it on patch refresh.

>> +
>> +     if (oldval == CPU_STATE_RUNNING)
>> +             return 1;
>> +
>> +     if (oldval == CPU_STATE_IDLE) {
>> +             set_tsk_ipi_pending(idle_task(cpu));
>> +             atomic_set(&per_cpu(cpu_idle_sync, cpu), CPU_STATE_WOKENUP);
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     return 0;
>
> We should probably disable interrupts around this, otherwise any delay
> in transitioning to wokenup from waking will cause the idle cpu to be
> stuck for similar amount of time.
>

Makes sense. Will add that too.

Thanks,
Venki

> thanks,
> suresh
>
--
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/