linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: arm64: Get rid of userspace_irqchip_in

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: <CAJHc60w7edpTSG2VA52m96BP6Eayg2jEc=9nt_b_kJFnOoQxfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 09:36:19 -0700
From: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	stable@...r.kernel.org, syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: arm64: Get rid of userspace_irqchip_in_use

On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 1:22 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 00:16:48 +0000,
> Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 11:47 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:06:09 +0000,
> > > Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 9:27 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 23:45:33 +0000,
> > > > > Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > Did you have a chance to check whether this had any negative impact on
> > > > > actual workloads? Since the entry/exit code is a bit of a hot spot,
> > > > > I'd like to make sure we're not penalising the common case (I only
> > > > > wrote this patch while waiting in an airport, and didn't test it at
> > > > > all).
> > > > >
> > > > I ran the kvm selftests, kvm-unit-tests and booted a linux guest to
> > > > test the change and noticed no failures.
> > > > Any specific test you want to try out?
> > >
> > > My question is not about failures (I didn't expect any), but
> > > specifically about *performance*, and whether checking the flag
> > > without a static key can lead to any performance drop on the hot path.
> > >
> > > Can you please run an exit-heavy workload (such as hackbench, for
> > > example), and report any significant delta you could measure?
> >
> > Oh, I see. I ran hackbench and micro-bench from kvm-unit-tests (which
> > also causes a lot of entry/exits), on Ampere Altra with kernel at
> > v6.12-rc1, and see no significant difference in perf.
>
> Thanks for running this stuff.
>
> > timer_10ms                          231040.0                          902.0
> > timer_10ms                         234120.0                            914.0
>
> This seems to be the only case were we are adversely affected by this
> change.
Hmm, I'm not sure how much we want to trust this comparison. For
instance, I just ran micro-bench again a few more times and here are
the outcomes of timer_10ms for each try with the patch:

Tries                                             total ns
               avg ns
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1_timer_10ms                             231840.0                          905.0
2_timer_10ms                             234560.0                          916.0
3_timer_10ms                             227440.0                          888.0
4_timer_10ms                             236640.0                          924.0
5_timer_10ms                             231200.0                          903.0

Here's a few on the baseline:

Tries                                             total ns
               avg ns
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1_timer_10ms                             231080.0                          902.0
2_timer_10ms                             238040.0                          929.0
3_timer_10ms                             231680.0                          905.0
4_timer_10ms                             229280.0                          895.0
5_timer_10ms                             228520.0                          892.0


> In the grand scheme of thins, that's noise. But this gives us
> a clear line of sight for the removal of the in-kernel interrupts back
> to userspace.
Sorry, I didn't follow you completely on this part.

Thank you.
Raghavendra