| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <F16E7DB1-9EBA-49A6-B2E3-B4D89753D1E6@caviumnetworks.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 18:21:48 +0000
From: "Chalamarla, Tirumalesh" <Tirumalesh.Chalamarla@...ium.com>
To: Imran Khan <kimran@...eaurora.org>,
Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC: "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Increase the max granular size"
On 4/17/17, 12:35 AM, "Imran Khan" <kimran@...eaurora.org> wrote:
On 4/12/2017 7:30 PM, Chalamarla, Tirumalesh wrote:
>
>
> On 4/11/17, 10:13 PM, "linux-arm-kernel on behalf of Imran Khan" <linux-arm-kernel-bounces@...ts.infradead.org on behalf of kimran@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
> On 4/7/2017 7:36 AM, Ganesh Mahendran wrote:
> > 2017-04-06 23:58 GMT+08:00 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>:
> >> 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?).
> >
> > network stack use SKB_DATA_ALIGN to align.
> > ---
> > #define SKB_DATA_ALIGN(X) (((X) + (SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1)) & \
> > ~(SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1))
> >
> > #define SMP_CACHE_BYTES L1_CACHE_BYTES
> > ---
> > I think this is the reason of performance regression.
> >
>
> Yes this is the reason for performance regression. Due to increases L1 cache alignment the
> object is coming from next kmalloc slab and skb->truesize is changing from 2304 bytes to
> 4352 bytes. This in turn increases sk_wmem_alloc which causes queuing of less send buffers.
>
> We tried different benchmarks and found none which really affects with Cache line change. If there is no correctness issue,
> I think we are fine with reverting the patch.
>
So, can we revert the patch that makes L1_CACHE_SHIFT 7 or should the patch suggested by Catalin should be mainlined.
We have verified the throughput degradation on 3.18 and 4.4 but I am afraid that this issue will be seen on other
kernels too.
> Though I still think it is beneficiary to do some more investigation for the perf loss, who knows 32 bit align or no align might
> Give even more perf benefit.
>
Which perf loss you are referring to here. Did you mean throughput loss here or some other perf benchmarking ?
The iperf issue mentioning here, looks to me as incomplete.
Thanks,
Imran
>
> Thanks,
> Tirumalesh.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > how about define L1_CACHE_SHIFT like below:
> > ---
> > #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_L1_CACHE_SHIFT
> > #define L1_CACHE_SHIFT CONFIG_ARM64_L1_CACHE_SHIFT
> > #else
> > #define L1_CACHE_SHIFT 7
> > endif
> > ---
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Catalin
>
>
> --
> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a\nmember of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
>
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a\nmember of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
Powered by blists - more mailing lists