linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Optimize the delay time of the poll on the GICR

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <343E0E168479F04FACCB176989D12DE7EE333B@dggemi522-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:18:03 +0000
From:   lushenming <lushenming@...wei.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Wanghaibin (D)" <wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com>,
        yuzenghui <yuzenghui@...wei.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Optimize the delay time of the poll
 on the GICR_VPENDBASER.Dirty bit

Hi, Marc,

I measured the time from vcpu_load() (include it) to __guest_enter() on Kunpeng 920. On average, It takes 2.55 microseconds (not first run && the VPT is empty). So waiting for 10 microseconds in 
vcpu scheduling really hurts performance.

And I agree that delaying the execution of its_wait_vpt_parse_complete() might be a  viable solution.

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Zyngier [mailto:maz@...nel.org] 
Sent: 2020-09-16 16:40
To: lushenming <lushenming@...wei.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>; Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Wanghaibin (D) <wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com>; yuzenghui <yuzenghui@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Optimize the delay time of the poll on the GICR_VPENDBASER.Dirty bit

On 2020-09-16 08:04, lushenming wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Our team just discussed this issue again and consulted our GIC 
> hardware design team. They think the RD can afford busy waiting. So we 
> still think maybe 0 is better, at least for our hardware.
> 
> In addition, if not 0, as I said before, in our measurement, it takes 
> only hundreds of nanoseconds, or 1~2 microseconds, to finish parsing 
> the VPT in most cases. So maybe 1 microseconds, or smaller, is more 
> appropriate.
> Anyway, 10 microseconds is too much.
> 
> But it has to be said that it does depend on the hardware 
> implementation.

Exactly. And given that the only publicly available implementation is a software model, I am reluctant to change "performance" related things based on benchmarks that can't be verified and appears to me as a micro optimization.

> Besides, I'm not sure where are the start and end point of the total 
> scheduling latency of a vcpu you said, which includes many events. Is 
> the parse time of the VPT not clear enough?

Measure the time it takes from kvm_vcpu_load() to the point where the vcpu enters the guest. How much, in proportion, do these 1/2/10ms represent?

Also, a better(?) course of action would maybe to consider whether we should split the its_vpe_schedule() call into two distinct operations: one that programs the VPE to be resident, and another that poll the Dirty bit *much
later* on the entry path, giving the GIC a chance to work in parallel with the CPU on the entry path.

If your HW is a quick as you say it is, it would pretty much guarantee a clear read of GICR_VPENDBASER without waiting.

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