linux-kernel - Re: [patch] x86, mm: pass in 'total' to __copy_from_user

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902280904271.3111@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sat, 28 Feb 2009 09:16:21 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Salman Qazi <sqazi@...gle.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86, mm: pass in 'total' to
 __copy_from_user_*nocache()

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> Can you suggest some other workload that should show sensitivity 
> to this detail too? Like a simple write() loop of non-4K-sized 
> files or so?

I bet you can find it, but I also suspect that it will depend quite a bit 
on the microarchitecture. What does 'movntq' actually _do_ on different 
CPU's (bypass L1 or L2 or just turn the L1 cache policy to "write through 
and invalidate")? How expensive is the sfence when there are still stores 
in the write buffer? Does 'movqnt' even use the write buffer for cached 
stores, or is doing some special path the the last-level cache?

If you want to be really subtle, ask questions like what are the 
implications for last-level caches that are inclusive? The last-level 
cache would take not just the new write, but it also has logic to make 
sure that it's a superset of the inner caches, so what does that do to 
replacement policy for that cache? Or does it cause invalidations in the 
inner caches?

Non-temporal stores are really quite different from normal stores. 
Depending on microarchitecture, that may be totally a non-issue (bypassing 
the L1 may be trivial and have no impact on anything else at all). Or it 
could be that a movntq is really expensive because it needs to do odd 
things.

So if you want to test this, I'd suggest using the same program that did 
the 256-byte writes (Unixbench's fstime thing), but just change the 
numbers, and just try different things. But I'd _also_ suggest that if 
you're going for anything more complicated (ie if you really want to 
have a good argument for that 'total_size' thing), then you should try out 
at least three different microarchitectures.

The "different" ones would be at a minimum P4, Core2 and Opteron. They 
really could have very different behavior. 

I suspect Core2 and Core i7 are fairly similar, but at the same time Ci7 
has that L3 cache thing, so it's quite possible that movntq is actually 
fundamentally different (does it bypass both L1 and L2? If so, latencies 
to the L3 are _much_ longer to Ci7 than the very cheap L2 latencies on 
C2).

			Linus
--
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/