[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180211191312.54apu5edk3olsfz3@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 20:13:12 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"Liguori, Anthony" <aliguori@...zon.com>,
Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@...k.tugraz.at>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/31 v2] PTI support for x86_32
* Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 05:47:43PM +0000, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > One thing worth noting is that performance of this whole series is
> > going to be abysmal due to the complete lack of 32-bit PCID. Maybe
> > any kernel built with this option set that runs on a CPU that has the
> > PCID bit set in CPUID should print a big fat warning like "WARNING:
> > you are using 32-bit PTI on a 64-bit PCID-capable CPU. Your
> > performance will increase dramatically if you switch to a 64-bit
> > kernel."
>
> Thanks for your review. I can add this warning, but I just hope that not
> a lot of people will actually see it :)
Could you please measure the PTI kernel vs. vanilla kernel?
Nothing complex, just perf's built-in scheduler and syscall benchmark should be
enough:
perf stat --null --sync --repeat 10 perf bench sched messaging -g 20
this should give us a pretty good worst-case overhead figure for process
workloads.
Add '-t' to test threaded workloads as well:
perf stat --null --sync --repeat 10 perf bench sched messaging -g 20 -t
The 10 runs used should be enough to reach good stability in practice:
Performance counter stats for 'perf bench sched messaging -g 20 -t' (10 runs):
0.380742219 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.73% )
Maybe do the same on the 64-bit kernel as well, so that we have 4 good data points
on the same hardware?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists