[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <89049465-643f-b383-82e2-360dc9660d09@c-s.fr>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 16:58:41 +0100
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 00/10] powerpc: Switch to CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK
Le 24/01/2019 à 16:01, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
>
>
> Le 24/01/2019 à 10:43, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On 01/24/2019 01:06 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> writes:
>>>> Le 12/01/2019 à 10:55, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
>>>>> The purpose of this serie is to activate CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK
>>>>> which
>>>>> moves the thread_info into task_struct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moving thread_info into task_struct has the following advantages:
>>>>> - It protects thread_info from corruption in the case of stack
>>>>> overflows.
>>>>> - Its address is harder to determine if stack addresses are
>>>>> leaked, making a number of attacks more difficult.
>>>>
>>>> I ran null_syscall and context_switch benchmark selftests and the
>>>> result
>>>> is surprising. There is slight degradation in context_switch and a
>>>> significant one on null_syscall:
>>>>
>>>> Without the serie:
>>>>
>>>> ~# chrt -f 98 ./context_switch --no-altivec --no-vector --no-fp
>>>> 55542
>>>> 55562
>>>> 55564
>>>> 55562
>>>> 55568
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> ~# ./null_syscall
>>>> 2546.71 ns 336.17 cycles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With the serie:
>>>>
>>>> ~# chrt -f 98 ./context_switch --no-altivec --no-vector --no-fp
>>>> 55138
>>>> 55142
>>>> 55152
>>>> 55144
>>>> 55142
>>>>
>>>> ~# ./null_syscall
>>>> 3479.54 ns 459.30 cycles
>>>>
>>>> So 0,8% less context switches per second and 37% more time for one
>>>> syscall ?
>>>>
>>>> Any idea ?
>>>
>>> What platform is that on?
>>
>> It is on the 8xx
On the 83xx, I have a slight improvment:
Without the serie:
root@...ippro:~# ./null_syscall
921.44 ns 307.15 cycles
With the serie:
root@...ippro:~# ./null_syscall
918.78 ns 306.26 cycles
Christophe
>>
>>>
>>> On 64-bit we have to turn one mtmsrd into two and that's obviously a
>>> slow down. But I don't see that you've done anything similar in 32-bit
>>> code.
>>>
>>> I assume it's patch 8 that causes the slow down?
>>
>> I have not digged into it yet, but why patch 8 ?
>>
>
> The increase of null_syscall duration happens with patch 5 when we
> activate CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists