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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <d6936b80-25ad-5e06-5fcc-c211adb70ceb@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 May 2021 15:30:06 +0800
From:   He Ying <heying24@...wei.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
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


在 2021/5/6 19:44, Marc Zyngier 写道:
> 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?

OK. We have just calculated the pmu cycles from the entry of gic_handle_irq

to the entry of do_handle_ipi. Here is some more information about our test:

CPU: Hisilicon hip05-d02

Applying the patch series: 1115 cycles

Reverting the patch series: 599 cycles

>
>> 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?

I'm afraid not. We just run some benchmarks and calculated pmu cycle 
counters.

But we have observed running time from the entry of gic_handle_irq to 
the entry

of do_handle_ipi almost doubles. Doesn't it affect 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.
OK.
>
>> 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).

OK. I see the patch series. Would it be applied to the mainline someday? 
I notice

that more than 5 months have passed since you sent the patch series.


Thanks.

>
> Thanks,
>
> 	M.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201124141449.572446-1-maz@kernel.org/
>