linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/31] x86/mm: Reduce tlb flushes from ptep_set_access

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:	Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:23:24 -0700
From:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/31] x86/mm: Reduce tlb flushes from ptep_set_access_flags()

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
>> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That may not even be needed.  Apparently Intel chips
>>>> automatically flush an entry from the TLB when it
>>>> causes a page fault.  I assume AMD chips do the same,
>>>> because flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault evaluates to
>>>> nothing on x86.
>>>
>>> Yes. It's not architected as far as I know, though. But I agree, it's
>>> possible - even likely - we could avoid TLB flushing entirely on x86.
>>
>> Actually, it is architected on x86. This was first described in the
>> intel appnote 317080 "TLBs, Paging-Structure Caches, and Their
>> Invalidation", last paragraph of section 5.1. Nowadays, the same
>> contents are buried somewhere in Volume 3 of the architecture manual
>> (in my copy: 4.10.4.1 Operations that Invalidate TLBs and
>> Paging-Structure Caches)
>
> This unfortunately would only work for processes with no threads
> because it only works on the current logical CPU.

No, the point is, if we are only *increasing* permissions on a page,
we can skip the remote TLB invalidations. Later on each remote CPU
might possibly get a spurious fault on that page, but that spurious
fault will resynchronize their TLBs for that page, so that the
instruction retry after the fault won't fault again.

It is often cheaper to let remote CPUs get an occasional spurious
fault than to synchronize with them on every permission change.

Of course, none of the above applies if we are *reducing* permissions
on a page (we really can't skip TLB invalidations there)

-- 
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
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/