From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751297AbeC3MJ0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:09:26 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f194.google.com ([209.85.128.194]:43263 "EHLO mail-wr0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751068AbeC3MJY (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:09:24 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+kweI4zPt3i/oWCY5BnSbCuxyb0SfY0iOAnK+ZCDDqzaYoPhx0uGXAAoLbImqUdXMgeXNOSA== Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:09:20 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Dave Hansen Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm , Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Lutomirski , Kees Cook , Hugh Dickins , =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Gro=DF?= , the arch/x86 maintainers , namit@vmware.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] Use global pages with PTI Message-ID: <20180330120920.btobga44wqytlkoe@gmail.com> References: <20180323174447.55F35636@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20180327200719.lvdomez6hszpmo4s@gmail.com> <0d6ea030-ec3b-d649-bad7-89ff54094e25@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0d6ea030-ec3b-d649-bad7-89ff54094e25@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Dave Hansen wrote: > On 03/27/2018 01:07 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >>> systems. Atoms are going to be the easiest thing to get my hands on, > >>> but I tend to shy away from them for performance work. > >> What I have in mind is that I wonder whether the whole circus is worth it > >> when there is no performance advantage on PCID systems. > > I was waiting on trying to find a relatively recent Atom system (they > actually come in reasonably sized servers [1]), but I'm hitting a snag > there, so I figured I'd just share a kernel compile using Ingo's > perf-based methodology on a Skylake desktop system with PCIDs. > > Here's the kernel compile: > > No Global pages (baseline): 186.951 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.35% ) > 28 Global pages (this set): 185.756 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.09% ) > -1.195 seconds (-0.64%) > > Lower is better here, obviously. > > I also re-checked everything using will-it-scale's llseek1 test[2] which > is basically a microbenchmark of a halfway reasonable syscall. Higher > here is better. > > No Global pages (baseline): 15783951 lseeks/sec > 28 Global pages (this set): 16054688 lseeks/sec > +270737 lseeks/sec (+1.71%) > > So, both the kernel compile and the microbenchmark got measurably faster. Ok, cool, this is much better! Mind re-sending the patch-set against latest -tip so it can be merged? At this point !PCID Intel hardware is not a primary concern, if something bad happens on them with global pages we can quirk global pages off on them in some way, or so. Thanks, Ingo