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: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:38:40 +0530 From: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gpkulkarni@...il.com> To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> Cc: Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@...eaurora.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>, Vikram Sethi <vikrams@...eaurora.org>, Jayachandran C <jnair@...iumnetworks.com>, "ganapatrao.kulkarni@...ium.com" <ganapatrao.kulkarni@...ium.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gicv3-its: Use NUMA aware memory allocation for ITS tables On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> wrote: > On 10/07/17 09:48, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: >> Hi Marc, >> >> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> wrote: >>> Hi Shanker, >>> >>> On 03/07/17 15:24, Shanker Donthineni wrote: >>>> Hi Marc, >>>> >>>> On 06/30/2017 03:51 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>>>> On 30/06/17 04:01, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni >>>>>> <gpkulkarni@...il.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Shanker, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Shanker Donthineni >>>>>>> <shankerd@...eaurora.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> The NUMA node information is visible to ITS driver but not being used >>>>>>>> other than handling errata. This patch allocates the memory for ITS >>>>>>>> tables from the corresponding NUMA node using the appropriate NUMA >>>>>>>> aware functions. >>>>>> >>>>>> IMHO, the description would have been more constructive? >>>>>> >>>>>> "All ITS tables are mapped by default to NODE 0 memory. >>>>>> Adding changes to allocate memory from respective NUMA NODES of ITS devices. >>>>>> This will optimize tables access and avoids unnecessary inter-node traffic." >>>>> >>>>> But more importantly, I'd like to see figures showing the actual benefit >>>>> of this per-node allocation. Given that both of you guys have access to >>>>> such platforms, please show me the numbers! >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'll share the actual results which shows the improvement whenever >>>> available on our next chips. Current version of Qualcomm qdf2400 doesn't >>>> support multi socket configuration to capture results and share with you. >>>> >>>> Do you see any other issues with this patch apart from the performance >>>> improvements. I strongly believe this brings the noticeable improvement >>>> in numbers on systems where it has multi node memory/CPU configuration. >>> >>> I agree that it *could* show an improvement, but it very much depends on >>> how often the ITS misses in its caches. For this kind of patches, I want >>> to see two things: >>> >>> 1) It brings a measurable benefit on NUMA platforms >> >> Did some measurement of interrupt response time for LPIs and we don't >> see any major >> improvement due to caching of Tables. However, we have seen >> improvements of around 5%. > > An improvement of what exactly? interrupt response time. > > M. > -- > Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... thanks Ganapat
Powered by blists - more mailing lists