linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] x86 User Interrupts support

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: <d0e9d6cd-16ea-173d-36ba-24ab814553b1@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:40:24 -0700
From:   Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
CC:     <x86@...nel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Gayatri Kammela" <gayatri.kammela@...el.com>,
        Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.com>,
        "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Randy E Witt <randy.e.witt@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Ramesh Thomas <ramesh.thomas@...el.com>,
        <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] x86 User Interrupts support

On 9/30/2021 9:26 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 01:01:19PM -0700, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>> +------------+-------------------------+
>> | IPC type   |   Relative Latency      |
>> |            |(normalized to User IPI) |
>> +------------+-------------------------+
>> | User IPI   |                     1.0 |
>> | Signal     |                    14.8 |
>> | Eventfd    |                     9.7 |
> Is this the bi-directional eventfd benchmark?
> https://github.com/intel/uintr-ipc-bench/blob/linux-rfc-v1/source/eventfd/eventfd-bi.c

Yes. I have left it unmodified from the original source. But, I should 
have looked at it more closely.

> Two things stand out:
>
> 1. The server and client threads are racing on the same eventfd.
>     Eventfds aren't bi-directional! The eventfd_wait() function has code
>     to write the value back, which is a waste of CPU cycles and hinders
>     progress. I've never seen eventfd used this way in real applications.
>     Can you use two separate eventfds?

Sure. I can do that.


> 2. The fd is in blocking mode and the task may be descheduled, so we're
>     measuring eventfd read/write latency plus scheduler/context-switch
>     latency. A fairer comparison against user interrupts would be to busy
>     wait on a non-blocking fd so the scheduler/context-switch latency is
>     mostly avoided. After all, the uintrfd-bi.c benchmark does this in
>     uintrfd_wait():
>
>       // Keep spinning until the interrupt is received
>       while (!uintr_received[token]);

That makes sense. I'll give this a try and send out the updated results.

Thanks,
Sohil