linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 00/10] powerpc: Switch to CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 16:01:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c5b86b5b-1f38-39bf-0458-3c6572b3b35c@c-s.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9b4dab64-6a6b-a599-4676-bf891473ada7@c-s.fr>



Le 24/01/2019 à 10:43, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> 
> 
> On 01/24/2019 01:06 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:
>>> Le 12/01/2019 à 10:55, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
>>>> The purpose of this serie is to activate CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK 
>>>> which
>>>> moves the thread_info into task_struct.
>>>>
>>>> Moving thread_info into task_struct has the following advantages:
>>>> - It protects thread_info from corruption in the case of stack
>>>> overflows.
>>>> - Its address is harder to determine if stack addresses are
>>>> leaked, making a number of attacks more difficult.
>>>
>>> I ran null_syscall and context_switch benchmark selftests and the result
>>> is surprising. There is slight degradation in context_switch and a
>>> significant one on null_syscall:
>>>
>>> Without the serie:
>>>
>>> ~# chrt -f 98 ./context_switch --no-altivec --no-vector --no-fp
>>> 55542
>>> 55562
>>> 55564
>>> 55562
>>> 55568
>>> ...
>>>
>>> ~# ./null_syscall
>>>      2546.71 ns     336.17 cycles
>>>
>>>
>>> With the serie:
>>>
>>> ~# chrt -f 98 ./context_switch --no-altivec --no-vector --no-fp
>>> 55138
>>> 55142
>>> 55152
>>> 55144
>>> 55142
>>>
>>> ~# ./null_syscall
>>>      3479.54 ns     459.30 cycles
>>>
>>> So 0,8% less context switches per second and 37% more time for one 
>>> syscall ?
>>>
>>> Any idea ?
>>
>> What platform is that on?
> 
> It is on the 8xx
> 
>>
>> On 64-bit we have to turn one mtmsrd into two and that's obviously a
>> slow down. But I don't see that you've done anything similar in 32-bit
>> code.
>>
>> I assume it's patch 8 that causes the slow down?
> 
> I have not digged into it yet, but why patch 8 ?
> 

The increase of null_syscall duration happens with patch 5 when we 
activate CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK.

Christophe

  reply	other threads:[~2019-01-24 15:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-12  9:55 [PATCH v13 00/10] powerpc: Switch to CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK Christophe Leroy
2019-01-12  9:55 ` [PATCH v13 01/10] powerpc/irq: use memblock functions returning virtual address Christophe Leroy
2019-01-12  9:55 ` [PATCH v13 02/10] book3s/64: avoid circular header inclusion in mmu-hash.h Christophe Leroy
2019-01-12  9:55 ` [PATCH v13 03/10] powerpc: Only use task_struct 'cpu' field on SMP Christophe Leroy
2019-01-12  9:55 ` [PATCH v13 04/10] powerpc: Prepare for moving thread_info into task_struct Christophe Leroy
2019-01-12  9:55 ` [PATCH v13 05/10] powerpc: Activate CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK Christophe Leroy
2019-01-12  9:55 ` [PATCH v13 06/10] powerpc: regain entire stack space Christophe Leroy
2019-01-12  9:55 ` [PATCH v13 07/10] powerpc: 'current_set' is now a table of task_struct pointers Christophe Leroy
2019-01-12  9:55 ` [PATCH v13 08/10] powerpc/32: Remove CURRENT_THREAD_INFO and rename TI_CPU Christophe Leroy
2019-01-12  9:55 ` [PATCH v13 09/10] powerpc/64: Remove CURRENT_THREAD_INFO Christophe Leroy
2019-01-12  9:55 ` [PATCH v13 10/10] powerpc: clean stack pointers naming Christophe Leroy
2019-01-19 10:23 ` [PATCH v13 00/10] powerpc: Switch to CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK Michael Ellerman
2019-01-19 17:21   ` LEROY Christophe
2019-01-23 23:10     ` Michael Ellerman
2019-01-22 19:42   ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-24  0:59     ` Michael Ellerman
2019-01-24 15:08       ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-23 10:04 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-24  1:06   ` Michael Ellerman
2019-01-24  9:43     ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-24 15:01       ` Christophe Leroy [this message]
2019-01-24 15:58         ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-25  7:00           ` Gabriel Paubert

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=c5b86b5b-1f38-39bf-0458-3c6572b3b35c@c-s.fr \
    --to=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).