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: <20211107155616.GA269390@lothringen>
Date:   Sun, 7 Nov 2021 16:56:16 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Norbert <nbrtt01@...il.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: Performance regression: thread wakeup time (latency) increased
 up to 3x

Hi Norbert,

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 12:01:32AM -0700, Norbert wrote:
> 
> On the thought that it might enter deeper idle/wait/sleep states:
> 
> The benchmark executes this test in a quite tight loop, except that so far
> it waited 1000 ns (with a mix of pause and rdtsc) before calling futex-wake,
> to make sure the other thread fully enters the futex-wait without taking any
> shortcuts.
> 
> Except when this "prepare time" is reduced to less than even 350 ns or so,
> the timings remain the same (they go up before they start going down).
> Surely in this situation the thread is at least not supposed to enter deeper
> states for such short waiting times.

Is it possible for you to share this benchmark so that I can try to reproduce?

Thanks!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ