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]
Date:   Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:44:25 +0800
From:   Wanpeng Li <>
To:     Yury Norov <>
Cc:, kvm <>,
        LAK <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Ashish Kalra <>,
        Christoffer Dall <>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <>,
        Linu Cherian <>,
        Shih-Wei Li <>,
        Sunil Goutham <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] IPI performance benchmark

Hi Yury,
2017-12-19 16:50 GMT+08:00 Yury Norov <>:
> This benchmark sends many IPIs in different modes and measures
> time for IPI delivery (first column), and total time, ie including
> time to acknowledge the receive by sender (second column).
> The scenarios are:
> Dry-run:        do everything except actually sending IPI. Useful
>                 to estimate system overhead.
> Self-IPI:       Send IPI to self CPU.
> Normal IPI:     Send IPI to some other CPU.
> Broadcast IPI:  Send broadcast IPI to all online CPUs.
> Broadcast lock: Send broadcast IPI to all online CPUs and force them
>                 acquire/release spinlock.
> The raw output looks like this:
> [  155.363374] Dry-run:                         0,            2999696 ns
> [  155.429162] Self-IPI:                 30385328,           65589392 ns
> [  156.060821] Normal IPI:              566914128,          631453008 ns
> [  158.384427] Broadcast IPI:                   0,         2323368720 ns
> [  160.831850] Broadcast lock:                  0,         2447000544 ns
> For virtualized guests, sending and reveiving IPIs causes guest exit.
> I used this test to measure performance impact on KVM subsystem of
> Christoffer Dall's series "Optimize KVM/ARM for VHE systems" [1].
> Test machine is ThunderX2, 112 online CPUs. Below the results normalized
> to host dry-run time, broadcast lock results omitted. Smaller - better.

Could you test on a x86 box? I see a lot of calltraces on my haswell
client host, there is no calltrace in the guest, however, I can still
observe "Invalid parameters" warning when insmod this module. In
addition, the x86 box fails to boot when ipi_benchmark is buildin.

Wanpeng Li

Powered by blists - more mailing lists