Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] arm_arch_timer: VDSO preparation, code consolidation

Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-09-24T18:58:37Z

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:58:19AM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> On 09/24/2014 09:50 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:32:54AM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> >> On 09/24/2014 09:12 AM, Christopher Covington wrote:
> >>> Hi Nathan,
> >>>
> >>> On 09/22/2014 08:28 PM, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> >>>> Hmm, this patch set is merely exposing the hardware counter when it is
> >>>> present for the VDSO's use; I take it you have no objection to that?
> >>>>
> >>>> While the 32-bit ARM VDSO I've posted (in a different thread) exploits a
> >>>> facility that is required by the virtualization option in the
> >>>> architecture, its utility is not limited to guest operating systems.
> >>>
> >>> Just to clarify, were the performance improvements you measured from a
> >>> virtualized guest or native?
> >>
> >> Yeah I should have been explicit about this. My tests and measurements
> >> (and all test results I've received from others, I believe) have been on
> >> native/host kernels, not guests.
> >
> > Have there been any measurements on systems without the architected
> > timers?
>
> I do test on iMX6 regularly. Afraid I don't have any pre-v7 hardware to
> check though.

Right, and iMX6 is Cortex-A9, which doesn't have the architected timer.

> Here's a report from you from an earlier submission that shows little/no
> impact:
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-June/267552.html

Yes, that's my email.

> But admittedly vdsotest is just doing rudimentary microbenchmarking.

vdsotest is comparing its own implementation (a function directly calling
the syscall) with a direct call into the vdso.

This isn't what I'm interested in, because applications won't be calling
the vdso directly. They will be calling the vdso _via_ glibc. What I'm
really interested in is what the difference is to an application between
the present case of not having any vdso (iow. not having the vdso support
code in glibc) and:

- having the vdso support code in glibc, but without the vdso being
provided.

- having the vdso support code in glibc, having the vdso provided, but
without the architected timer.

Only then can we actually see what the /overall/ impact of VDSO support
is on CPUs without the architected timer.

>
> Running a lttng-ust workload that emits tracepoints as fast as possible
> (lttng-ust calls clock_gettime and getcpu on every tracepoint), I see
> about 1% degradation on iMX6.
>
>
> >>> I count 18 dts* files that have "arm,armv7-timer", including platforms with
> >>> Krait, Exynos, and Tegra processors.
> >>
> >> Yup.
> >
> > That's not the full story. Almost every ARM to date has not had an
> > architected timer. Architected timers are a recent addition - as
> > pointed out, a Cortex A7/A12/A15 invention. Most of the platforms I
> > see are Cortex A9 which doesn't have any architected timers.
> >
> > Yes, it may be fun to work on new hardware and make that perform
> > much better than previous, but we should not loose sight that there
> > is older hardware out there, and we shouldn't unnecessarily penalise
> > it when adding new features.
>
> Agreed, of course, and I'll include more detailed results from systems
> without the architected timer in future submissions.
>
>
> > What we /need/ to know is what the effect providing a VDSO in an
> > environment without an architected timer (so using the VDSO fallback
> > functions calling the syscalls) and having glibc use it is compared
> > to the current situation where there is no VDSO for glibc to use.
> >
> > If you can show that there's no difference, then I'm happy to go with
> > always providing the VDSO. If there's a detrimental effect (which I
> > suspect there may be, since we now have to have glibc test to see if
> > the VDSO is there, jump to the VDSO, the VDSO then tests whether we
> > have an architected timer, and then we finally get to issue the
> > syscall), then we must avoid providing the VDSO on systems which have
> > no architected timer.
>
> One point I would like to raise is that the VDSO provides (or could be
> made to provide) acceleration for APIs that are unrelated to the
> architected timer:
>
> - clock_gettime with CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE and CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE.
> This is currently included.
>
> - getcpu, which I had planned on submitting later.
>
> I don't know whether the coarse clock support is compelling; they don't
> seem to be commonly used. But there is a nice 4-5x speedup for those on
> iMX6.
>
> getcpu, on the other hand, is one of the two system calls lttng-ust uses
> in every tracepoint emitted, and I would like to have it available in
> the VDSO on all systems capable of supporting the implementation, which
> may take the form of co-opting TPIDRURW or some other register.

Right, so the decision is whether a vdso implementation of the uncomon
coarse clocks and eventually getcpu benefit from this. I don't think
normal applications make many getcpu calls either - most applications
don't care which CPU they run on.

> None of which is to argue that unnecessarily degrading gettimeofday
> performance on some systems for the benefit of others is acceptable.

Right - the fine grained time functions are far more important as
applications tend to call those quite a lot (some applications call
them a truely excessive number of times).

--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.