| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:17:06 -0400
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sebastien.dugue@...l.net,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Run checksumming in parallel accross multiple alu's
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 02:11:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm sure it worked properly on my system here, I specificially
> > checked it, but I'll gladly run it again. You have to give me an
> > hour as I have a meeting to run to, but I'll have results shortly.
>
> So what I tried to react to was this observation of yours:
>
> > > > Heres my data for running the same test with taskset
> > > > restricting execution to only cpu0. I'm not quite sure whats
> > > > going on here, but doing so resulted in a 10x slowdown of the
> > > > runtime of each iteration which I can't explain. [...]
>
> A 10x slowdown would be consistent with not running your testcase
> but 'perf bench sched messaging' by accident, or so.
>
> But I was really just guessing wildly here.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
So, I apologize, you were right. I was running the test.sh script but perf was
measuring itself. Using this command line:
for i in `seq 0 1 3`
do
echo $i > /sys/modules/csum_test/parameters/module_test_mode; taskset -c 0 perf stat --repeat -C 0 -ddd /root/test.sh
done >> counters.txt 2>&1
with test.sh unchanged I get these results:
Base:
Performance counter stats for '/root/test.sh' (20 runs):
56.069737 task-clock # 1.005 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.13% ) [100.00%]
5 context-switches # 0.091 K/sec ( +- 5.11% ) [100.00%]
0 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec [100.00%]
366 page-faults # 0.007 M/sec ( +- 0.08% )
144,264,737 cycles # 2.573 GHz ( +- 0.23% ) [17.49%]
9,239,760 stalled-cycles-frontend # 6.40% frontend cycles idle ( +- 3.77% ) [19.19%]
110,635,829 stalled-cycles-backend # 76.69% backend cycles idle ( +- 0.14% ) [19.68%]
54,291,496 instructions # 0.38 insns per cycle
# 2.04 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 0.14% ) [18.30%]
5,844,933 branches # 104.244 M/sec ( +- 2.81% ) [16.58%]
301,523 branch-misses # 5.16% of all branches ( +- 0.12% ) [16.09%]
23,645,797 L1-dcache-loads # 421.721 M/sec ( +- 0.05% ) [16.06%]
494,467 L1-dcache-load-misses # 2.09% of all L1-dcache hits ( +- 0.06% ) [16.06%]
2,907,250 LLC-loads # 51.851 M/sec ( +- 0.08% ) [16.06%]
486,329 LLC-load-misses # 16.73% of all LL-cache hits ( +- 0.11% ) [16.06%]
11,113,848 L1-icache-loads # 198.215 M/sec ( +- 0.07% ) [16.06%]
5,378 L1-icache-load-misses # 0.05% of all L1-icache hits ( +- 1.34% ) [16.06%]
23,742,876 dTLB-loads # 423.453 M/sec ( +- 0.06% ) [16.06%]
0 dTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all dTLB cache hits [16.06%]
11,108,538 iTLB-loads # 198.120 M/sec ( +- 0.06% ) [16.06%]
0 iTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all iTLB cache hits [16.07%]
0 L1-dcache-prefetches # 0.000 K/sec [16.07%]
0 L1-dcache-prefetch-misses # 0.000 K/sec [16.07%]
0.055817066 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.10% )
Prefetch(5*64):
Performance counter stats for '/root/test.sh' (20 runs):
47.423853 task-clock # 1.005 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.62% ) [100.00%]
6 context-switches # 0.116 K/sec ( +- 4.27% ) [100.00%]
0 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec [100.00%]
368 page-faults # 0.008 M/sec ( +- 0.07% )
120,423,860 cycles # 2.539 GHz ( +- 0.85% ) [14.23%]
8,555,632 stalled-cycles-frontend # 7.10% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0.56% ) [16.23%]
87,438,794 stalled-cycles-backend # 72.61% backend cycles idle ( +- 1.13% ) [18.33%]
55,039,308 instructions # 0.46 insns per cycle
# 1.59 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 0.05% ) [18.98%]
5,619,298 branches # 118.491 M/sec ( +- 2.32% ) [18.98%]
303,686 branch-misses # 5.40% of all branches ( +- 0.08% ) [18.98%]
26,577,868 L1-dcache-loads # 560.432 M/sec ( +- 0.05% ) [18.98%]
1,323,630 L1-dcache-load-misses # 4.98% of all L1-dcache hits ( +- 0.14% ) [18.98%]
3,426,016 LLC-loads # 72.242 M/sec ( +- 0.05% ) [18.98%]
1,304,201 LLC-load-misses # 38.07% of all LL-cache hits ( +- 0.13% ) [18.98%]
13,190,316 L1-icache-loads # 278.137 M/sec ( +- 0.21% ) [18.98%]
33,881 L1-icache-load-misses # 0.26% of all L1-icache hits ( +- 4.63% ) [17.93%]
25,366,685 dTLB-loads # 534.893 M/sec ( +- 0.24% ) [15.93%]
734 dTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all dTLB cache hits ( +- 8.40% ) [13.94%]
13,314,660 iTLB-loads # 280.759 M/sec ( +- 0.05% ) [12.97%]
0 iTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all iTLB cache hits [12.98%]
0 L1-dcache-prefetches # 0.000 K/sec [12.98%]
0 L1-dcache-prefetch-misses # 0.000 K/sec [12.87%]
0.047194407 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.62% )
Parallel ALU:
Performance counter stats for '/root/test.sh' (20 runs):
57.395070 task-clock # 1.004 CPUs utilized ( +- 1.71% ) [100.00%]
5 context-switches # 0.092 K/sec ( +- 3.90% ) [100.00%]
0 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec [100.00%]
367 page-faults # 0.006 M/sec ( +- 0.10% )
143,232,396 cycles # 2.496 GHz ( +- 1.68% ) [16.73%]
7,299,843 stalled-cycles-frontend # 5.10% frontend cycles idle ( +- 2.69% ) [18.47%]
109,485,845 stalled-cycles-backend # 76.44% backend cycles idle ( +- 2.01% ) [19.99%]
56,867,669 instructions # 0.40 insns per cycle
# 1.93 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 0.22% ) [19.49%]
6,646,323 branches # 115.800 M/sec ( +- 2.15% ) [17.75%]
304,671 branch-misses # 4.58% of all branches ( +- 0.37% ) [16.23%]
23,612,428 L1-dcache-loads # 411.402 M/sec ( +- 0.05% ) [15.95%]
518,988 L1-dcache-load-misses # 2.20% of all L1-dcache hits ( +- 0.11% ) [15.95%]
2,934,119 LLC-loads # 51.121 M/sec ( +- 0.06% ) [15.95%]
509,027 LLC-load-misses # 17.35% of all LL-cache hits ( +- 0.15% ) [15.95%]
11,103,819 L1-icache-loads # 193.463 M/sec ( +- 0.08% ) [15.95%]
5,381 L1-icache-load-misses # 0.05% of all L1-icache hits ( +- 2.45% ) [15.95%]
23,727,164 dTLB-loads # 413.401 M/sec ( +- 0.06% ) [15.95%]
0 dTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all dTLB cache hits [15.95%]
11,104,205 iTLB-loads # 193.470 M/sec ( +- 0.06% ) [15.95%]
0 iTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all iTLB cache hits [15.95%]
0 L1-dcache-prefetches # 0.000 K/sec [15.95%]
0 L1-dcache-prefetch-misses # 0.000 K/sec [15.96%]
0.057151644 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.69% )
Both:
Performance counter stats for '/root/test.sh' (20 runs):
48.377833 task-clock # 1.005 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.67% ) [100.00%]
5 context-switches # 0.113 K/sec ( +- 3.88% ) [100.00%]
0 cpu-migrations # 0.001 K/sec ( +-100.00% ) [100.00%]
367 page-faults # 0.008 M/sec ( +- 0.08% )
122,529,490 cycles # 2.533 GHz ( +- 1.05% ) [14.24%]
8,796,729 stalled-cycles-frontend # 7.18% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0.56% ) [16.20%]
88,936,550 stalled-cycles-backend # 72.58% backend cycles idle ( +- 1.48% ) [18.16%]
58,405,660 instructions # 0.48 insns per cycle
# 1.52 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 0.07% ) [18.61%]
5,742,738 branches # 118.706 M/sec ( +- 1.54% ) [18.61%]
303,555 branch-misses # 5.29% of all branches ( +- 0.09% ) [18.61%]
26,321,789 L1-dcache-loads # 544.088 M/sec ( +- 0.07% ) [18.61%]
1,236,101 L1-dcache-load-misses # 4.70% of all L1-dcache hits ( +- 0.08% ) [18.61%]
3,409,768 LLC-loads # 70.482 M/sec ( +- 0.05% ) [18.61%]
1,212,511 LLC-load-misses # 35.56% of all LL-cache hits ( +- 0.08% ) [18.61%]
10,579,372 L1-icache-loads # 218.682 M/sec ( +- 0.05% ) [18.61%]
19,426 L1-icache-load-misses # 0.18% of all L1-icache hits ( +- 14.70% ) [18.61%]
25,329,963 dTLB-loads # 523.586 M/sec ( +- 0.27% ) [17.29%]
802 dTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all dTLB cache hits ( +- 5.43% ) [15.33%]
10,635,524 iTLB-loads # 219.843 M/sec ( +- 0.09% ) [13.38%]
0 iTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all iTLB cache hits [12.72%]
0 L1-dcache-prefetches # 0.000 K/sec [12.72%]
0 L1-dcache-prefetch-misses # 0.000 K/sec [12.72%]
0.048140073 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.67% )
Which overall looks alot more like I expect, save for the parallel ALU cases.
It seems here that the parallel ALU changes actually hurt performance, which
really seems counter-intuitive. I don't yet have any explination for that. I
do note that we seem to have more stalls in the both case so perhaps the
parallel chains call for a more agressive prefetch. Do you have any thoughts?
Regards
Neil
--
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