linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] irqchip: gicv3-its: Use NUMA aware memory allocation for ITS tables

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]

Message-ID: <6abeadae-99d7-bdb0-28bb-eb472cb7d783@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jan 2019 09:01:30 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gklkml16@...il.com>
Cc:     Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, shankerd@...eaurora.org,
        Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@...ium.com>,
        Robert Richter <Robert.Richter@...ium.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        "Nair, Jayachandran" <Jayachandran.Nair@...ium.com>,
        gkulkarni@...vell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] irqchip: gicv3-its: Use NUMA aware memory allocation
 for ITS tables

On 11/01/2019 03:53, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Shameer,
> 
> Patch looks OK to me, please feel free to add,
> Reviewed-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gkulkarni@...vell.com>
> 
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 5:25 PM Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> wrote:
>>
>> On 13/12/2018 10:59, Shameer Kolothum wrote:
>>> From: Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@...eaurora.org>
>>>
>>> The NUMA node information is visible to ITS driver but not being used
>>> other than handling hardware errata. ITS/GICR hardware accesses to the
>>> local NUMA node is usually quicker than the remote NUMA node. How slow
>>> the remote NUMA accesses are depends on the implementation details.
>>>
>>> This patch allocates memory for ITS management tables and command
>>> queue from the corresponding NUMA node using the appropriate NUMA
>>> aware functions. This change improves the performance of the ITS
>>> tables read latency on systems where it has more than one ITS block,
>>> and with the slower inter node accesses.
>>>
>>> Apache Web server benchmarking using ab tool on a HiSilicon D06
>>> board with multiple numa mem nodes shows Time per request and
>>> Transfer rate improvements of ~3.6% with this patch.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@...eaurora.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> This is to revive the patch originally sent by Shanker[1] and
>>> to back it up with a benchmark test. Any further testing of
>>> this is most welcome.
>>>
>>> v2-->v3
>>>  -Addressed comments to use page_address().
>>>  -Added Benchmark results to commit log.
>>>  -Removed T-by from Ganapatrao for now.
>>>
>>> v1-->v2
>>>  -Edited commit text.
>>>  -Added Ganapatrao's tested-by.
>>>
>>> Benchmark test details:
>>> --------------------------------
>>> Test Setup:
>>> -D06 with dimm on node 0(Sock#0) and 3 (Sock#1).
>>> -ITS belongs to numa node 0.
>>> -Filesystem mounted on a PCIe NVMe based disk.
>>> -Apache server installed on D06.
>>> -Running ab benchmark test in concurrency mode from a remote m/c
>>>  connected to D06 via  hns3(PCIe) n/w port.
>>>  "ab -k -c 750 -n 2000000 http://10.202.225.188/"
>>>
>>> Test results are avg. of 15 runs.
>>>
>>> For 4.20-rc1  Kernel,
>>> ----------------------------
>>> Time per request(mean, concurrent)  = 0.02753[ms]
>>> Transfer Rate = 416501[Kbytes/sec]
>>>
>>> For 4.20-rc1 +  this patch,
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> Time per request(mean, concurrent)  = 0.02653[ms]
>>> Transfer Rate = 431954[Kbytes/sec]
>>>
>>> % improvement ~3.6%
>>>
>>> vmstat shows around 170K-200K interrupts per second.
>>>
>>> ~# vmstat 1 -w
>>> procs -----------------------memory-- -  -system--
>>>  r  b         swpd         free            in
>>>  5  0            0     30166724          102794
>>>  9  0            0     30141828          171148
>>>  5  0            0     30150160          207185
>>> 13  0            0     30145924          175691
>>> 15  0            0     30140792          145250
>>> 13  0            0     30135556          201879
>>> 13  0            0     30134864          192391
>>> 10  0            0     30133632          168880
>>> ....
>>>
>>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9833339/
>>
>> The figures certainly look convincing. I'd need someone from Cavium to
>> benchmark it on their hardware and come back with results so that we can
>> make a decision on this.
> 
> Hi Marc,
> My setup got altered during Lab migration from Cavium to Marvell office.
> I don't think, i will have same setup anytime soon.

Fair enough. If nobody objects, I'll take it.

Shameer, please repost this on top of 5.0-rc1, together with
Ganapatrao's RB, and we'll take it from there.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...