lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/5] LoongArch: Use la.pcrel instead of la.abs for exception handlers
From
Date
Hi folks,

On 02/10/2023 05:18 PM, Youling Tang wrote:
>
>
> On 02/10/2023 05:09 PM, Huacai Chen wrote:
>> Hi, Youling and Ruoyao,
>>
>> Thank you very much for implementing the per-node exceptions. But I
>> want to know if the per-node solution is really worthy for a PIE
>> kernel. So, could you please test the performance? Maybe we can reduce
>> the complexity if we give up the per-node solution.

Tested on Loongson-3C5000L-LL machine, using CLFS7.3 system.

- nopernode:
Based on the v1 patch method, and remove the else branch process in
setup_tlb_handler().

- pernode: Based on the v4 patch method.

- pie: Enable RANDOMIZE_BASE (KASLR).

- nopie: Disable RANDOMIZE_BASE and RELOCATABLE.


The UnixBench test results are as follows:

- nopernode-nopie: 3938.7

- pernode-nopie: 4062.2

- nopernode-pie: 4009.7

- pernode-pie: 4028.7

In general, `pernode` is higher than `nopernode`, and `nopie` is higher
than `pie`. (except that nopernode-pie is higher than nopernode-nopie,
which is not as expected, which may be caused by the instability of the
machine).

Everyone is more inclined to use `pernode` or `nopernode` to implement
in the exception handling process?

Youling.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:25    [W:0.057 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site