Author Topic: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k  (Read 2156 times)

cchinicz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2021, 09:35:26 am »
These results you could compare:
https://openbenchmarking.org/result/2102047-HA-2101296AS71

Only difference: Kernel pagesize and installed RAM.

Interesting: this other test done with a 4K page size and 16 cores achieved a much worse performance.. see the attached image comparing a performance per core.

So, maybe the issue here is that Intel i5 outperforms Power9 per core, regardless of page size and 64K page gives actually more performance per core for this specific test.

What comes to my mind is how bad is Power9 as a desktop..

MPC7500

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 307
  • Karma: +17/-1
    • View Profile
    • Twitter
Re: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2021, 10:18:21 am »
The graph is wrong ;D
But the Phoronix test suite can't do anything about that. You have to divide the lower result by 4 (228)

cchinicz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2021, 10:42:19 am »
The graph is wrong ;D
But the Phoronix test suite can't do anything about that. You have to divide the lower result by 4 (228)
So, it's 250 secs with 4 cores vs 228 secs with 16 cores. It seems that the additional cores did not help improve performance and actually Intel cores and threads handle this specific load/test better than Power9.

The question remains: how good is Blackbird as a desktop performance wise vs Intel? I posted another topic about Thunderbird running faster on this same Dell 5580 (i5 8th gen) than on Blackbird, that means, real world desktop user experience.

Maybe Power9 is a better fit for HPC or TB HANA in memory DBs but not as a Desktop alternative, not taking into account the difficulty to find software for the architecture.

MPC7500

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 307
  • Karma: +17/-1
    • View Profile
    • Twitter
Re: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2021, 11:17:59 am »

SiteAdmin

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +6/-0
  • RCS Staff
    • View Profile
Re: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2021, 12:32:11 pm »
Maybe Power9 is a better fit for HPC or TB HANA in memory DBs but not as a Desktop alternative, not taking into account the difficulty to find software for the architecture.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?  Those Intel cores (and similar AMD ones) come with a mandatory signed binary blob on a secondary CPU that has full access to all your data.  In the worst case, you could simply be computing faster for an adversary by selecting the Intel solution.

Given the lack of those blobs is one of POWER's main reasons to be used on desktop, a more appropriate comparison for the specific purpose of determining POWER's usability as a desktop computer would be against other silicon that is also blob-free -- older Intel parts (Core Duo timeframe), or blob-free ARM devices (e.g. Rockchip).

If you want the fastest possible desktop with no regard for security, owner control, or privacy, then the simple fact is the latest AMD devices running Windows are your best bet.  For many of us, and especially here at Raptor, that represents such a large risk that we'd rather go back to pen and paper...

...much like the Justice Department just did here in the US, actually, after the SolarWinds proprietary / signed malware problems. ;D
« Last Edit: February 04, 2021, 01:11:55 pm by SiteAdmin »

ClassicHasClass

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Talospace Earth Orbit
    • View Profile
    • Floodgap
Re: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2021, 12:38:30 pm »
cchincz, as MPC7500 correctly points out, they are both 4-core CPUs -- the "16 CPUs" are an artifact of SMT -- and optimization is still a problem for some programs. This is improving slowly. For example, we now have better SIMD in Firefox and in other media packages.

MauryG5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Karma: +9/-1
    • View Profile
Re: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2021, 01:25:38 pm »
I agree 100 per 100 with what MPC and Classic say and I had already written it to you before I cchincz. It is useless to make comparisons with X86, they cannot be done because we do not have the software optimizations that they have! This thing matters more than you might think, it matters a lot, it is the main reason for which we do not have the same or superior performance. Unfortunately at the moment we cannot see the goodness and performance superiority of Power because the software does not allow it. But in any case just as our SiteAdmin says, at least they are safe and fully controllable compared to X86 and I can personally say that at the level of operating system and normal use in Desktop, I personally go great in any case. If one day we are lucky enough to have optimized programs and native programs for our Power architecture, then for sure things will change a lot and the scales will move a lot ...

cchinicz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2021, 01:43:21 pm »
Maybe Power9 is a better fit for HPC or TB HANA in memory DBs but not as a Desktop alternative, not taking into account the difficulty to find software for the architecture.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?  Those Intel cores (and similar AMD ones) come with a mandatory signed binary blob on a secondary CPU that has full access to all your data.  In the worst case, you could simply be computing faster for an adversary by selecting the Intel solution.

Given the lack of those blobs is one of POWER's main reasons to be used on desktop, a more appropriate comparison for the specific purpose of determining POWER's usability as a desktop computer would be against other silicon that is also blob-free -- older Intel parts (Core Duo timeframe), or blob-free ARM devices (e.g. Rockchip).

If you want the fastest possible desktop with no regard for security, owner control, or privacy, then the simple fact is the latest AMD devices running Windows are your best bet.  For many of us, and especially here at Raptor, that represents such a large risk that we'd rather go back to pen and paper...

...much like the Justice Department just did here in the US, actually, after the SolarWinds proprietary / signed malware problems. ;D

Hi, I was not discussing privacy concerns. Actually I'm quite happy with my Blackbird and the community here, which is very supportive of new and less tech savvy users like myself. Also, it performs quite well for my needs from a desktop. I agree with MauryG5 and ClassicHasClass that it's pointless to compare performance.

I appreciate very much the work you guys do at Raptor developing open hardware and wish you continued sucess.

Sincerely

cchinicz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2021, 01:58:48 pm »
Both CPUs are 4-core.
At the end it's all about optimisations.

Improving performance of Phoronix benchmarks on POWER9
Easier Power ISA vectorizing for fun and profit with GCC x86 intrinsics

This then answers my question, 4K and 64K page sizes resulted in roughly the same performance.

The discussion about Fedora desktop for PPC64el being 4K is related to compatibility aspects and not performance.

Thanks for the clarification.

MauryG5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Karma: +9/-1
    • View Profile
Re: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
« Reply #24 on: February 04, 2021, 03:36:00 pm »
above all it affects the GPUs that are used. The 4K dimensions have become indispensable if you want to use a new generation GPU like Le Navi10 or 14, or the Nano ...! I believe that even the Big Navi will now want the dimensions in 4K, lately it is clear that AMD in the latest drivers it has provided, has made a switch to 4K and therefore we need to adapt the Kernel and currently none of the developers of the various distros are going to use the 4K option apparently ...

SiteAdmin

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +6/-0
  • RCS Staff
    • View Profile
Re: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
« Reply #25 on: February 04, 2021, 10:56:44 pm »
Hi, I was not discussing privacy concerns. Actually I'm quite happy with my Blackbird and the community here, which is very supportive of new and less tech savvy users like myself. Also, it performs quite well for my needs from a desktop. I agree with MauryG5 and ClassicHasClass that it's pointless to compare performance.

I appreciate very much the work you guys do at Raptor developing open hardware and wish you continued sucess.

Sincerely

No problem.  We're glad to hear you're happy with your Blackbird, and of course are always interested in where we do fall a bit short in real-world performance (and how to improve said shortcomings with software optimizations)!

MauryG5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Karma: +9/-1
    • View Profile
Re: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2021, 01:00:15 am »
Guys I was trying to compile and install the 5.11 kernel on Debian using the universal procedure but it doesn't let me install the openssl-devel library.  In fact, as soon as I try to compile it gives me the classic error that it does not find it.  Do you have any addictions in turn that I don't know?  Thank you.

xilinder

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
« Reply #27 on: February 23, 2021, 08:17:18 am »
The libs and other ssl needed on your computer.

libssl-dev
libssl1.1
openssl
perl-openssl-defaults
python-openssl
python-service-identity
ssl-cert

Also, using make menuconfig, you must change the CONFIG_SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYS= from "debian/certs/debian-uefi-certs.pem" to simply ""
# Certificates for signature checking
#
CONFIG_SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYRING=y
CONFIG_SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYS="debian/certs/debian-uefi-certs.pem"
# CONFIG_SYSTEM_EXTRA_CERTIFICATE is not set
CONFIG_SECONDARY_TRUSTED_KEYRING=y
CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_KEYRING=y
CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST=""
CONFIG_BINARY_PRINTF=y

That is in the crypto section down near the bottom.
Talos II 2x8, 32GB RAM, onboard Microsemi RAID,  AMD WX7100, J.Micron SATA/PATA PCIe adapter. Debian with Mate.

MauryG5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Karma: +9/-1
    • View Profile
Re: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
« Reply #28 on: February 23, 2021, 01:36:33 pm »
Hi Xlinder, always thanks for your precious help, I installed what I was missing, only 2 at the end of your list, unfortunately I can't understand the options to be fixed in the section you tell me in the api encryption section.  You tell me exactly what I have to do in that section but for how it looks in the configuration menu, I am sending you a photo to understand.  I can't understand it from how you wrote it in your post sorry ... Currently mine is like this and it gives me an error in the line "debian / certain / eufi-certs.pem" written just like this including the quotes ... how should I change  this?  How should the other options be put?  Thanks for your patience...

xilinder

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
« Reply #29 on: February 23, 2021, 02:01:45 pm »
Go down to Additional X.509 keys for default system keyring.
Hit Enter.
Delete all the text, including the quotes, and Enter again.
Then EXIT, EXIT, EXIT and save the new configuration.

Please let us know how it works for you.
Talos II 2x8, 32GB RAM, onboard Microsemi RAID,  AMD WX7100, J.Micron SATA/PATA PCIe adapter. Debian with Mate.