netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] Optimize the snmp stat aggregation for large cpus

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]

Date:	Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:09:38 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
	jmorris@...ei.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net,
	jiri@...nulli.us, edumazet@...gle.com, hannes@...essinduktion.org,
	tom@...bertland.com, azhou@...ira.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	ipm@...rality.org.uk, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	anton@....ibm.com, nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] Optimize the snmp stat aggregation for large
 cpus

On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 15:55 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 08/26/2015 04:37 AM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:24:24 +0530
> >
> >> Please let me know if you have suggestions/comments.
> >
> > Like Eric Dumazet said the idea is good but needs some adjustments.
> >
> > You might want to see whether a per-cpu work buffer works for this.
> 
> sure, Let me know if I understood correctly,
> 
> we allocate the temp buffer,
> we will have a  "add_this_cpu_data" function and do
> 
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>                  smp_call_function_single(cpu, add_this_cpu_data, buffer, 1)
> 
> if not could you please point to an example you had in mind.


Sorry I do not think it is a good idea.

Sending an IPI is way more expensive and intrusive than reading 4 or 5
cache lines from memory (per cpu)

Definitely not something we want.

> 
> >
> > It's extremely unfortunately that we can't depend upon the destination
> > buffer being properly aligned, because we wouldn't need a temporary
> > scratch area if it were aligned properly.
> 
> True, But I think for 64 bit cpus when (pad == 0) we can go ahead and
> use stats array directly and get rid of put_unaligned(). is it correct?


Nope. We have no alignment guarantee. It could be 0x............04
pointer value. (ie not a multiple of 8)

> 
> (my internal initial patch had this version but thought it is ugly to
> have ifdef BITS_PER_LONG==64)

This has nothing to do with arch having 64bit per long. It is about
alignment of a u64.



--
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