Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] LoongArch: Use la.pcrel instead of la.abs for exception handlers | From | Youling Tang <> | Date | Thu, 16 Feb 2023 10:32:48 +0800 |
| |
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.
| |