linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Increase the max granular size"

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: <20170406155825.GA7705@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:58:25 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Imran Khan <kimran@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     "\"Chalamarla, Tirumalesh\" <Tirumalesh.Chalamarla@...iumnetworks.com>;
        Ganesh Mahendran" <opensource.ganesh@...il.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Increase the max granular size"

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:52:13PM +0530, Imran Khan wrote:
> On 4/5/2017 10:13 AM, Imran Khan wrote:
> >> We may have to revisit this logic and consider L1_CACHE_BYTES the
> >> _minimum_ of cache line sizes in arm64 systems supported by the kernel.
> >> Do you have any benchmarks on Cavium boards that would show significant
> >> degradation with 64-byte L1_CACHE_BYTES vs 128?
> >>
> >> For non-coherent DMA, the simplest is to make ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN the
> >> _maximum_ of the supported systems:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h
> >> index 5082b30bc2c0..4b5d7b27edaf 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h
> >> @@ -18,17 +18,17 @@
> >>
> >>  #include <asm/cachetype.h>
> >>
> >> -#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT         7
> >> +#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT         6
> >>  #define L1_CACHE_BYTES         (1 << L1_CACHE_SHIFT)
> >>
> >>  /*
> >>   * Memory returned by kmalloc() may be used for DMA, so we must make
> >> - * sure that all such allocations are cache aligned. Otherwise,
> >> - * unrelated code may cause parts of the buffer to be read into the
> >> - * cache before the transfer is done, causing old data to be seen by
> >> - * the CPU.
> >> + * sure that all such allocations are aligned to the maximum *known*
> >> + * cache line size on ARMv8 systems. Otherwise, unrelated code may cause
> >> + * parts of the buffer to be read into the cache before the transfer is
> >> + * done, causing old data to be seen by the CPU.
> >>   */
> >> -#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN      L1_CACHE_BYTES
> >> +#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN      (128)
> >>
> >>  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >> index 392c67eb9fa6..30bafca1aebf 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >> @@ -976,9 +976,9 @@ void __init setup_cpu_features(void)
> >>         if (!cwg)
> >>                 pr_warn("No Cache Writeback Granule information, assuming
> >> cache line size %d\n",
> >>                         cls);
> >> -       if (L1_CACHE_BYTES < cls)
> >> -               pr_warn("L1_CACHE_BYTES smaller than the Cache Writeback Granule (%d < %d)\n",
> >> -                       L1_CACHE_BYTES, cls);
> >> +       if (ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN < cls)
> >> +               pr_warn("ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN smaller than the Cache Writeback Granule (%d < %d)\n",
> >> +                       ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN, cls);
> >>  }
> >>
> >>  static bool __maybe_unused
> > 
> > This change was discussed at: [1] but was not concluded as apparently no one
> > came back with test report and numbers. After including this change in our 
> > local kernel we are seeing significant throughput improvement. For example with:
> > 
> > iperf -c 192.168.1.181 -i 1 -w 128K -t 60
> > 
> > The average throughput is improving by about 30% (230Mbps from 180Mbps).
> > Could you please let us know if this change can be included in upstream kernel.
> > 
> > [1]: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux.kernel/P40yDB90ePs
> 
> Could you please provide some feedback about the above mentioned query ?

Do you have an explanation on the performance variation when
L1_CACHE_BYTES is changed? We'd need to understand how the network stack
is affected by L1_CACHE_BYTES, in which context it uses it (is it for
non-coherent DMA?).

The Cavium guys haven't shown any numbers (IIUC) to back the
L1_CACHE_BYTES performance improvement but I would not revert the
original commit since ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN definitely needs to cover the
maximum available cache line size, which is 128 for them.

-- 
Catalin