[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180212145125.GE16484@8bytes.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:51:25 +0100
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.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
Hi Ingo,
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 08:13:12PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Could you please measure the PTI kernel vs. vanilla kernel?
Okay, did that, here is the data. The test machine is a Xeon E5-1620v2,
which is Ivy Bridge based (no PCIE) and has 4C/8T.
I ran the 2 tests you suggested:
* Test-1: perf stat --null --sync --repeat 10 perf bench sched messaging -g 20
* Test-2: perf stat --null --sync --repeat 10 perf bench sched messaging -g 20 -t
The tests ran on these kernels:
* tip-32-pae: current top of tip/x86-tip-for-linus branch,
compiled as a 32 bit kernel with PAE
(commit b2ac58f90540e39324e7a29a7ad471407ae0bf48)
* pti-32-pae: Same as above with my patches on-top, as on
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/joro/linux.git pti-x32-v2
compiled as a 32 bit kernel with PAE
(commit dbb0074f778b396a11e0c897fef9d0c4583e7ccb)
* pti-off-64: current top of tip/x86-tip-for-linus branch,
compiled as a 64 bit kernel, booted with pti=off
(commit b2ac58f90540e39324e7a29a7ad471407ae0bf48)
* pti-on-64: current top of tip/x86-tip-for-linus branch,
compiled as a 64 bit kernel, booted with pti=on
(commit b2ac58f90540e39324e7a29a7ad471407ae0bf48)
Results are:
| Test-1 | Test-2
------------+--------------------+-----------------
tip-32-pae | 0.28s (+-0.44%) | 0.27s (+-2.15%)
------------+--------------------+-----------------
pti-32-pae | 0.44s (+-0.40%) | 0.42s (+-0.48%)
------------+--------------------+-----------------
pti-off-64 | 0.24s (+-0.40%) | 0.25s (+-1.31%)
------------+--------------------+-----------------
pti-on-64 | 0.30s (+-0.47%) | 0.31s (+-0.95%)
On 32 bit with PTI enabled the test needs 157% (non-threaded) and
156% (threaded) of time compared to the non-PTI baseline.
On 64 bit these numbers are 125% (non-threaded) and 124% (threaded).
The pti-32-pae kernel still used 'rep movsb' in the entry code. I
replaced that with 'rep movsl' and measured again, but overhead is still
around 152%.
I also measured cycles with 'perf record' to see where the additional
time is spent. The report showed around 25% in entry_SYSENTER_32 for
the pti-32-pae kernel. The same report on the tip-32-pae kernel shows
around 2.5% for the same symbol.
The entry_SYSENTER_32 path does no stack-copy on entry (it only
push/pops 8 bytes for the cr3 switch), but one full pt_regs copy on
exit. The exit-path was easy to optimize, I got it to the point where it
only copied 8 bytes to the entry stack (flags and eax). This way I got
the 'perf report' numbers for entry_SYSENTER_32 down to around 20%, but
the overall numbers for Test-1 and Test-2 are still at around 150% of
the baseline.
So it seems that most of the additional time is actually spent switching
the cr3s.
Regards,
Joerg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists