linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] arm64: Allow IPIs to be handled as normal interrupts

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 06 May 2021 12:44:21 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     He Ying <heying24@...wei.com>
Cc:     <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, <Valentin.Schneider@....com>,
        <andrew@...n.ch>, <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        <f.fainelli@...il.com>, <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
        <jason@...edaemon.net>, <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        <saravanak@...gle.com>, <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        <tglx@...utronix.de>, <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] arm64: Allow IPIs to be handled as normal interrupts

On Thu, 06 May 2021 08:50:42 +0100,
He Ying <heying24@...wei.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello Marc,
> 
> We have faced a performance regression for handling ipis since this
> commit. I think it's the same issue reported by Vincent.

Can you share more details on what regression you have observed?
What's the workload, the system, the performance drop?

> I found you pointed out the possible two causes:
> 
> (1) irq_enter/exit on the rescheduling IPI means we reschedule much
> more often.

It turned out to be a red herring. We don't reschedule more often, but
we instead suffer from the overhead of irq_enter()/irq_exit().
However, this only matters for silly benchmarks, and no real-life
workload showed any significant regression. Have you identified such
realistic workload?

> (2) irq_domain lookups add some overhead.

While this is also a potential source of overhead, it turned out not
to be the case.

> But I don't see any following patches in mainline. So, are you still
> working on this issue?  Looking forward to your reply.

See [1]. However, there is probably better things to do than this
low-level specialisation of IPIs, and Thomas outlined what needs to be
done (see v1 of the patch series).

Thanks,

	M.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201124141449.572446-1-maz@kernel.org/

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.