[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 11:06:53 -0600
From: Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>
To: Julian Stecklina <jsteckli@...zon.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
juerg.haefliger@....com, deepa.srinivasan@...cle.com,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
joao.m.martins@...cle.com, pradeep.vincent@...cle.com,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com,
Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
chris.hyser@...cle.com, Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
John Haxby <john.haxby@...cle.com>, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Redoing eXclusive Page Frame Ownership (XPFO) with isolated CPUs
in mind (for KVM to isolate its guests per CPU)
On 09/12/2018 09:37 AM, Julian Stecklina wrote:
> Julian Stecklina <jsteckli@...zon.de> writes:
>
>> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:45 AM Julian Stecklina <jsteckli@...zon.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've been spending some cycles on the XPFO patch set this week. For the
>>>> patch set as it was posted for v4.13, the performance overhead of
>>>> compiling a Linux kernel is ~40% on x86_64[1]. The overhead comes almost
>>>> completely from TLB flushing. If we can live with stale TLB entries
>>>> allowing temporary access (which I think is reasonable), we can remove
>>>> all TLB flushing (on x86). This reduces the overhead to 2-3% for
>>>> kernel compile.
>>>
>>> I have to say, even 2-3% for a kernel compile sounds absolutely horrendous.
>>
>> Well, it's at least in a range where it doesn't look hopeless.
>>
>>> Kernel bullds are 90% user space at least for me, so a 2-3% slowdown
>>> from a kernel is not some small unnoticeable thing.
>>
>> The overhead seems to come from the hooks that XPFO adds to
>> alloc/free_pages. These hooks add a couple of atomic operations per
>> allocated (4K) page for book keeping. Some of these atomic ops are only
>> for debugging and could be removed. There is also some opportunity to
>> streamline the per-page space overhead of XPFO.
>
> I've updated my XPFO branch[1] to make some of the debugging optional
> and also integrated the XPFO bookkeeping with struct page, instead of
> requiring CONFIG_PAGE_EXTENSION, which removes some checks in the hot
> path. These changes push the overhead down to somewhere between 1.5 and
> 2% for my quad core box in kernel compile. This is close to the
> measurement noise, so I take suggestions for a better benchmark here.
>
> Of course, if you hit contention on the xpfo spinlock then performance
> will suffer. I guess this is what happened on Khalid's large box.
>
> I'll try to remove the spinlocks and add fixup code to the pagefault
> handler to see whether this improves the situation on large boxes. This
> might turn out to be ugly, though.
>
Hi Julian,
I ran tests with your updated code and gathered lock statistics. Change in system time for "make -j60" was in the noise margin (It actually went up by about 2%). There is some contention on xpfo_lock. Average wait time does not look high compared to other locks. Max hold time looks a little long. From /proc/lock_stat:
&(&page->xpfo_lock)->rlock: 29698 29897 0.06 134.39 15345.58 0.51 422474670 960222532 0.05 30362.05 195807002.62 0.20
Nevertheless even a smaller average wait time can add up.
--
Khalid
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
