Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1321909
| From | Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/mm: If INVPCID is available, use it to flush global mappings |
| Date | 2016-01-29 18:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qWlbz-6xj-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qUUdr-88K-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qUUdt-88K-51@gated-at.bofh.it> <qWidJ-4pG-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:37:44AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On my Skylake laptop, INVPCID function 2 (flush absolutely >> everything) takes about 376ns, whereas saving flags, twiddling >> CR4.PGE to flush global mappings, and restoring flags takes about >> 539ns. > > FWIW, I ran your microbenchmark on the IVB laptop I have here 3 times > and some of the numbers from each run are pretty unstable. Not that it > means a whole lot - the thing doesn't have INVPCID support. > > I'm just questioning the microbenchmark and whether we should be rather > doing those measurements with a real benchmark, whatever that means. My > limited experience says that measuring TLB performance is hard. > > ./context_switch_latency 0 thread same > use_xstate = 0 > Using threads > 1: 100000 iters at 2676.2 ns/switch > 2: 100000 iters at 2700.2 ns/switch > 3: 100000 iters at 2656.1 ns/switch > > ./context_switch_latency 0 thread different > use_xstate = 0 > Using threads > 1: 100000 iters at 5174.8 ns/switch > 2: 100000 iters at 5140.5 ns/switch > 3: 100000 iters at 5292.9 ns/switch > > ./context_switch_latency 0 process same > use_xstate = 0 > Using a subprocess > 1: 100000 iters at 2361.2 ns/switch > 2: 100000 iters at 2332.2 ns/switch > 3: 100000 iters at 3436.9 ns/switch > > ./context_switch_latency 0 process different > use_xstate = 0 > Using a subprocess > 1: 100000 iters at 4713.6 ns/switch > 2: 100000 iters at 4957.5 ns/switch > 3: 100000 iters at 5012.2 ns/switch > > ./context_switch_latency 1 thread same > use_xstate = 1 > Using threads > 1: 100000 iters at 2505.6 ns/switch > 2: 100000 iters at 2483.1 ns/switch > 3: 100000 iters at 2479.7 ns/switch > > ./context_switch_latency 1 thread different > use_xstate = 1 > Using threads > 1: 100000 iters at 5245.9 ns/switch > 2: 100000 iters at 5241.1 ns/switch > 3: 100000 iters at 5220.3 ns/switch > > ./context_switch_latency 1 process same > use_xstate = 1 > Using a subprocess > 1: 100000 iters at 2329.8 ns/switch > 2: 100000 iters at 2350.2 ns/switch > 3: 100000 iters at 2500.9 ns/switch > > ./context_switch_latency 1 process different > use_xstate = 1 > Using a subprocess > 1: 100000 iters at 4970.7 ns/switch > 2: 100000 iters at 5034.0 ns/switch > 3: 100000 iters at 4991.6 ns/switch > I'll fiddle with that benchmark a little bit. Maybe I can make it suck less. If anyone knows a good non-micro benchmark for this, let me know. I refuse to use dbus as my benchmark :) FWIW, I benchmarked cr4 vs invpcid by adding a prctl and calling it in a loop. If Ingo's fpu benchmark thing ever lands, I'll gladly send a patch to add TLB flushes to it. --Andy
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/mm: If INVPCID is available, use it to flush global mappings Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2016-01-29 15:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/mm: If INVPCID is available, use it to flush global mappings Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-01-29 18:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/mm: If INVPCID is available, use it to flush global mappings Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2016-01-29 19:30 +0100
csiph-web