linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memcpy_flushcache: use cache flusing for larger lengths

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: <CAPcyv4gpe8u=zNrRhvd9ioVNGbOJfRUXzFZuV--be6Hbj0xXtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 11:28:08 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcpy_flushcache: use cache flusing for larger lengths

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 1:24 AM Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
> > With dm-writecache on emulated pmem (with the memmap argument), we get
> >
> > With the original kernel:
> > 8508 - 11378
> > real    0m4.960s
> > user    0m0.638s
> > sys     0m4.312s
> >
> > With dm-writecache hacked to use cached writes + clflushopt:
> > 8505 - 11378
> > real    0m4.151s
> > user    0m0.560s
> > sys     0m3.582s
>
> I did some multithreaded tests:
> http://people.redhat.com/~mpatocka/testcases/pmem/microbenchmarks/pmem-multithreaded.txt
>
> And it turns out that for singlethreaded access, write+clwb performs
> better, while for multithreaded access, non-temporal stores perform
> better.
>
> 1       sequential write-nt 8 bytes             1.3 GB/s
> 2       sequential write-nt 8 bytes             2.5 GB/s
> 3       sequential write-nt 8 bytes             2.8 GB/s
> 4       sequential write-nt 8 bytes             2.8 GB/s
> 5       sequential write-nt 8 bytes             2.5 GB/s
>
> 1       sequential write 8 bytes + clwb         1.6 GB/s
> 2       sequential write 8 bytes + clwb         2.4 GB/s
> 3       sequential write 8 bytes + clwb         1.7 GB/s
> 4       sequential write 8 bytes + clwb         1.2 GB/s
> 5       sequential write 8 bytes + clwb         0.8 GB/s
>
> For one thread, we can see that write-nt 8 bytes has 1.3 GB/s and write
> 8+clwb has 1.6 GB/s, but for multiple threads, write-nt has better
> throughput.
>
> The dm-writecache target is singlethreaded (all the copying is done while
> holding the writecache lock), so it benefits from clwb.
>
> Should memcpy_flushcache be changed to write+clwb? Or are there some
> multithreaded users of memcpy_flushcache that would be hurt by this
> change?

Maybe this is asking for a specific memcpy_flushcache_inatomic()
implementation for your use case, but leave nt-writes for the general
case?