linux-kernel - Re: Re-tune x86 uaccess code for PREEMPT

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: <f6227e5d-597b-4818-876a-3a21893cdd93@email.android.com>
Date:	Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:57:26 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
CC:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, mingo@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Re-tune x86 uaccess code for PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY

That sounds like an issue with specific preemption policies.

Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de> wrote:
>On Sat, 2013-08-10 at 21:27 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: 
>> On 08/10/2013 09:17 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Do you have any quantification of "munches throughput?"  It seems
>odd
>> >> that it would be worse than polling for preempt all over the
>kernel, but
>> >> perhaps the additional locking is what costs.
>> > 
>> > I hadn't compared in ages, so made some fresh samples.
>> > 
>> > Q6600 3.11-rc4
>> > 
>> > vmark
>> > voluntary     169808     155826     154741     1.000
>> > preempt       149354     124016     128436      .836
>> > 
>> > That should be ~worst case, it hates preemption. 
>> > 
>> > tbench 8
>> > voluntary    1027.96    1028.76    1044.60     1.000
>> > preempt       929.06     935.01     928.64      .900
>> > 
>> > hackbench -l 10000
>> > voluntary     23.146     23.124     23.230     1.000
>> > preempt       25.065     24.633     24.789     1.071
>> > 
>> > kbuild vmlinux
>> > voluntary  3m44.842s  3m42.975s  3m42.954s     1.000
>> > preempt    3m46.141s  3m45.835s  3m45.953s     1.010
>> > 
>> > Compute load comparisons are boring 'course.
>> > 
>> 
>> I presume voluntary is indistinguishable from no preemption at all?
>
>No, all preemption options produce performance deltas.
>
>> Either way, that is definitely a reproducible test case, so if
>someone
>> is willing to take on optimizing preemption they can use vmark as the
>> litmus test.  It would be really awesome if we genuinely could get
>the
>> cost of preemption down to where it just doesn't matter.
>
>You have to eat more scheduler cycles, that's what PREEMPT does for a
>living.  Release a lock, wham.
>
>-Mike

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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/