linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] IPI performance benchmark

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]

Date:   Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:09:40 +0300
From:   Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
To:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ashish Kalra <Ashish.Kalra@...ium.com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Linu Cherian <Linu.Cherian@...ium.com>,
        Shih-Wei Li <shihwei@...columbia.edu>,
        Sunil Goutham <Sunil.Goutham@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] IPI performance benchmark

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 02:44:25PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Hi Yury,
> 2017-12-19 16:50 GMT+08:00 Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>:
> > 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.

EINVAL is returned intentionally to let user run test again without
annoying rmmod.