From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f71.google.com (mail-wm0-f71.google.com [74.125.82.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E4426B0003 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f71.google.com with SMTP id b193so1558416wmd.7 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 11:13:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id b10sor2989083wri.35.2018.02.11.11.13.16 for (Google Transport Security); Sun, 11 Feb 2018 11:13:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 20:13:12 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/31 v2] PTI support for x86_32 Message-ID: <20180211191312.54apu5edk3olsfz3@gmail.com> References: <1518168340-9392-1-git-send-email-joro@8bytes.org> <20180209191112.55zyjf4njum75brd@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180209191112.55zyjf4njum75brd@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Joerg Roedel Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Joerg Roedel , Thomas Gleixner , "H . Peter Anvin" , X86 ML , LKML , Linux-MM , Linus Torvalds , Dave Hansen , Josh Poimboeuf , Juergen Gross , Peter Zijlstra , Borislav Petkov , Jiri Kosina , Boris Ostrovsky , Brian Gerst , David Laight , Denys Vlasenko , Eduardo Valentin , Greg KH , Will Deacon , "Liguori, Anthony" , Daniel Gruss , Hugh Dickins , Kees Cook , Andrea Arcangeli , Waiman Long , Pavel Machek * Joerg Roedel wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 05:47:43PM +0000, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > One thing worth noting is that performance of this whole series is > > going to be abysmal due to the complete lack of 32-bit PCID. Maybe > > any kernel built with this option set that runs on a CPU that has the > > PCID bit set in CPUID should print a big fat warning like "WARNING: > > you are using 32-bit PTI on a 64-bit PCID-capable CPU. Your > > performance will increase dramatically if you switch to a 64-bit > > kernel." > > Thanks for your review. I can add this warning, but I just hope that not > a lot of people will actually see it :) Could you please measure the PTI kernel vs. vanilla kernel? Nothing complex, just perf's built-in scheduler and syscall benchmark should be enough: perf stat --null --sync --repeat 10 perf bench sched messaging -g 20 this should give us a pretty good worst-case overhead figure for process workloads. Add '-t' to test threaded workloads as well: perf stat --null --sync --repeat 10 perf bench sched messaging -g 20 -t The 10 runs used should be enough to reach good stability in practice: Performance counter stats for 'perf bench sched messaging -g 20 -t' (10 runs): 0.380742219 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.73% ) Maybe do the same on the 64-bit kernel as well, so that we have 4 good data points on the same hardware? Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org