linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Align TLB invalidation info

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:17:36 -0800
From:   Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Align TLB invalidation info

Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> wrote:
>> Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 01/31/2018 12:11 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>> The TLB invalidation info is allocated on the stack, which might cause
>>>> it to be unaligned. Since this information may be transferred to
>>>> different cores for TLB shootdown, this might result in an additional
>>>> cache-line bouncing between the cores.
>>>> 
>>>> GCC provides a way to deal with it by using
>>>> __builtin_alloca_with_align(). Use it to avoid the bouncing cache lines.
>>> 
>>> It doesn't really *bounce*, though, does it?  I don't see any writes on
>>> the remote side.  The remote use seems entirely read-only.
>>> 
>>> You also don't have to exhaustively test this, but I'd love to see at
>>> least a sanity check with a microbenchmark (or something) that, yes,
>>> this does help *something*.  Maybe it makes the remote
>>> flush_tlb_func_common() run faster because it's pulling in fewer lines,
>>> or maybe you can even detect fewer misses in there.
>> 
>> I agree that with the whole Meltdown/Spectre entry-cost it might not even be
>> measurable, at least on small ( < 2 sockets) machines. But I do not think it
>> worth profiling. Basically, AFAIK, all the data structures that are used for
>> inter-processor communication by the kernel are aligned, and this is an
>> exception.
> 
> This is only going to be measurable at all on NUMA, I suspect.

Yes, I meant <= 2 ...