| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20131112171239.GC19780@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:12:39 -0500 From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sebastien.dugue@...l.net, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: add prefetching to do_csum] On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 05:42:22PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > Hi again Neil. > > Forwarding on to netdev with a concern as to how often > do_csum is used via csum_partial for very short headers > and what impact any prefetch would have there. > > Also, what changed in your test environment? > > Why are the new values 5+% higher cycles/byte than the > previous values? > > And here is the new table reformatted: > > len set iterations Readahead cachelines vs cycles/byte > 1 2 3 4 6 10 20 > 1500B 64MB 1000000 1.4342 1.4300 1.4350 1.4350 1.4396 1.4315 1.4555 > 1500B 128MB 1000000 1.4312 1.4346 1.4271 1.4284 1.4376 1.4318 1.4431 > 1500B 256MB 1000000 1.4309 1.4254 1.4316 1.4308 1.4418 1.4304 1.4367 > 1500B 512MB 1000000 1.4534 1.4516 1.4523 1.4563 1.4554 1.4644 1.4590 > 9000B 64MB 1000000 0.8921 0.8924 0.8932 0.8949 0.8952 0.8939 0.8985 > 9000B 128MB 1000000 0.8841 0.8856 0.8845 0.8854 0.8861 0.8879 0.8861 > 9000B 256MB 1000000 0.8806 0.8821 0.8813 0.8833 0.8814 0.8827 0.8895 > 9000B 512MB 1000000 0.8838 0.8852 0.8841 0.8865 0.8846 0.8901 0.8865 > 64KB 64MB 1000000 0.8132 0.8136 0.8132 0.8150 0.8147 0.8149 0.8147 > 64KB 128MB 1000000 0.8013 0.8014 0.8013 0.8020 0.8041 0.8015 0.8033 > 64KB 256MB 1000000 0.7956 0.7959 0.7956 0.7976 0.7981 0.7967 0.7973 > 64KB 512MB 1000000 0.7934 0.7932 0.7937 0.7951 0.7954 0.7943 0.7948 > There we go, thats better: len set iterations Readahead cachelines vs cycles/byte 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 1500B 64MB 1000000 1.3638 1.3288 1.3464 1.3505 1.3586 1.3527 1.3408 1500B 128MB 1000000 1.3394 1.3357 1.3625 1.3456 1.3536 1.3400 1.3410 1500B 256MB 1000000 1.3773 1.3362 1.3419 1.3548 1.3543 1.3442 1.4163 1500B 512MB 1000000 1.3442 1.3390 1.3434 1.3505 1.3767 1.3513 1.3820 9000B 64MB 1000000 0.8505 0.8492 0.8521 0.8593 0.8566 0.8577 0.8547 9000B 128MB 1000000 0.8507 0.8507 0.8523 0.8627 0.8593 0.8670 0.8570 9000B 256MB 1000000 0.8516 0.8515 0.8568 0.8546 0.8549 0.8609 0.8596 9000B 512MB 1000000 0.8517 0.8526 0.8552 0.8675 0.8547 0.8526 0.8621 64KB 64MB 1000000 0.7679 0.7689 0.7688 0.7716 0.7714 0.7722 0.7716 64KB 128MB 1000000 0.7683 0.7687 0.7710 0.7690 0.7717 0.7694 0.7703 64KB 256MB 1000000 0.7680 0.7703 0.7688 0.7689 0.7726 0.7717 0.7713 64KB 512MB 1000000 0.7692 0.7690 0.7701 0.7705 0.7698 0.7693 0.7735 So, the numbers are correct now that I returned my hardware to its previous interrupt affinity state, but the trend seems to be the same (namely that there isn't a clear one). We seem to find peak performance around a readahead of 2 cachelines, but its very small (about 3%), and its inconsistent (larger set sizes fall to either side of that stride). So I don't see it as a clear win. I still think we should probably scrap the readahead for now, just take the perf bits, and revisit this when we can use the vector instructions or the independent carry chain instructions to improve this more consistently. Thoughts Neil -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists