linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86 rwsem optimization extreme

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:59:38 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 rwsem optimization extreme

On 02/17/2010 05:53 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, I don't know of any microarchitecture where adc is slower than
>> add, *as long as* the setup time for the CF flag is already used up.
> 
> Oh, I think there are lots.
> 
> Look at just about any x86 latency/throughput table, and you'll see:
> 
>  - adc latencies are typically much higher than a single cycle
> 
>    But you are right that this is likel not an issue on any out-of-order 
>    chip, since the 'stc' will schedule perfectly.
> 

STC actually tends to schedule poorly, since it has a partial register
stall.  In-order or out-of-order doesn't really matter, though; what
matters is that the scoreboarding used for the flags has to settle, or
you will take a huge hit.

>  - but adc _throughput_ is also typically much higher, which indicates 
>    that even if you do flag renaming, the 'adc' quite likely only 
>    schedules in a single ALU unit.
> 
> For example, on a Pentium, adc/sbb can only go in the U pipe, and I think 
> the same is true of 'stc'. Now, nobody likely cares about Pentiums any 
> more, but the point is, 'adc' does often have constraints that a regular 
> 'add' does not, and there's an example of a 'stc+adc' pair would at the 
> very least have to be scheduled with an instruction in between.

No doubt.  I doubt it much matters in this context, but either way I
think the patch is probably a bad idea... much for the same as my incl
hack was - since the code isn't actually inline, saving a handful bytes
is not the right tradeoff.

	-hpa

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/