linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: Optimize intel_pmu_pebs_fixup

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: <20131028131946.GG108330@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:19:46 -0400
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>, jmario@...hat.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: Optimize intel_pmu_pebs_fixup_ip()

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:36:52PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:52:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:48:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > I'll also make sure to test we actually hit the fault path
> > > > by concurrently running something like:
> > > > 
> > > >  while :; echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ; done
> > > > 
> > > > while doing perf top or so.. 
> > > 
> > > So the below appears to work; I've ran:
> > > 
> > >   while :; do echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; sleep 1; done &
> > >   while :; do make O=defconfig-build/ clean; perf record -a -g fp -e cycles:pp make O=defconfig-build/ -s -j64; done
> > > 
> > > And verified that the if (in_nmi()) trace_printk() was visible in the
> > > trace output verifying we indeed took the fault from the NMI code.
> > > 
> > > I've had this running for ~ 30 minutes or so and the machine is still
> > > healthy.
> > > 
> > > Don, can you give this stuff a spin on your system?
> > 
> > Hi Peter,
> > 
> > I finally had a chance to run this on my machine.  From my 
> > testing, it looks good.  Better performance numbers.  I think my 
> > longest latency went from 300K cycles down to 150K cycles and very 
> > few of those (most are under 100K cycles).
> 
> Btw., do we know where those ~100k-150k cycles are spent 
> specifically? 100k cycles is still an awful lot of time to spend in 
> NMI context ...

I agree, there is still a bunch of latency in the nmi path.  I believe it
is still in the pebs code.  I share the machine with a colleague right
now, so I haven't been able to isolate it.

But going from a few hundred samples over a million cycles to about a
couple dozen over 100K was a big step.  :-)

I still see perf throttling and people are complaining about it here so I
still plan to keep investigating.  Just taking me a while.  Sorry about
that.

Cheers,
Don
--
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/