From: Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com>
To: geoff@infradead.org
Cc: takahiro.akashi@linaro.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] arm64: disable/enable d-cache support for
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 20:11:51 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5547852F.8030309@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1430742915.git.panand@redhat.com>
On Monday 04 May 2015 06:32 PM, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> These patches add support for enable/disable d cache support. It reduces
> time for sha verification from more than 2 min to 3-4 sec on my
> platform.
> There are some of the observation which I am unable to explain.
> * It takes around 18 sec when I boot a kexec kernel and around 3-4 sec
> * when I boot a crash kernel. In case of kexec kernel start of 1st
> * segment is at 0000004000280000 and, end of last segment is at
> * 00000040029c0000. In case of crash kernel start of 1st segment is at
> * 00000041b9080000 and, end of last segment is at 00000041f9000000.
There is one more observation which is not explainable :(
While executing a secondary kernel using kexec -e, if sha256_process()
function is aligned at offset 256, it takes 18 sec else it takes double
ie 36 sec.
# objdump -d purgatory/purgatory.ro | grep sha256_process
0000000000001300 <sha256_process>:
-> takes 18 sec
If because of some changes in code, this function shifts a bit
# objdump -d purgatory/purgatory.ro | grep sha256_process
0000000000001310 <sha256_process>:
-> takes 36 sec.
So, "__attribute__ ((aligned (256))) void sha256_process(
sha256_context *ctx, const uint8_t data[64] )" guarantees constant
execution time, but how can this be justified?
~Pratyush
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-04 14:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-04 13:02 [PATCH RFC 0/3] arm64: disable/enable d-cache support for Pratyush Anand
2015-05-04 13:02 ` [PATCH RFC 1/3] arm64: Add enable/disable d-cache support for purgatory Pratyush Anand
2015-05-04 13:02 ` [PATCH RFC 2/3] arm64: Pass RAM boundary to purgatory Pratyush Anand
2015-05-04 13:02 ` [PATCH RFC 3/3] arm64: Enable/disable D-cache before/after sha verification Pratyush Anand
2015-05-04 14:41 ` Pratyush Anand [this message]
2015-05-06 17:05 ` [PATCH RFC 0/3] arm64: disable/enable d-cache support for Geoff Levand
2015-05-06 17:37 ` Pratyush Anand
2015-05-07 4:25 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-05-07 4:54 ` Pratyush Anand
2015-05-07 5:08 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-05-07 15:32 ` Geoff Levand
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=5547852F.8030309@redhat.com \
--to=panand@redhat.com \
--cc=geoff@infradead.org \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \
/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