linux-kernel - Re: __i915_spin

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: <564519C4.6050302@kernel.dk>
Date:	Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:59:16 -0700
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:	Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: __i915_spin_request() sucks

On 11/12/2015 03:52 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/12/2015 03:19 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>>> So today, I figured I'd try just killing that spin. If it fails, we'll
>>>> punt to normal completions, so easy change. And wow, MASSIVE
>>>> difference.
>>>> I can now scroll in chrome and not rage! It's like the laptop is 10x
>>>> faster now.
>>>>
>>>> Ran git blame, and found:
>>>>
>>>> commit 2def4ad99befa25775dd2f714fdd4d92faec6e34
>>>> Author: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
>>>> Date:   Tue Apr 7 16:20:41 2015 +0100
>>>>
>>>>      drm/i915: Optimistically spin for the request completion
>>>>
>>>> and read the commit message. Doesn't sound that impressive. Especially
>>>> not for something that screws up interactive performance by a LOT.
>>>>
>>>> What's the deal? Revert?
>>
>> The tests that it improved the most were the latency sensitive tests and
>> since my Broadwell xps13 behaves itself, I'd like to understand how it
>> culminates in an interactivity loss.
>>
>> 1. Maybe it is the uninterruptible nature of the polling, making X's
>> SIGIO jerky:
>
> This one still feels bad.
>
>> 2. Or maybe it is increased mutex contention:
>
> And so does this one... I had to manually apply hunks 2-3, and after
> doing seat-of-the-pants testing for both variants, I confirmed with perf
> that we're still seeing a ton of time in __i915_wait_request() for both
> of them.

I don't see how #2 could make any difference, you're passing in 0x3 hard 
coded for most call sites, so we poll. The ones that don't, pass a bool 
(?!).

I should note that with the basic patch of just never spinning, I don't 
see __i915_wait_request() in the profiles. At all.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/