linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] x86-64: Emulate legacy vsyscalls

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: <20110607090743.GC4133@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:07:43 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	david@...g.hm
Cc:	pageexec@...email.hu, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>,
	x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
	richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@...labs.com>,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] x86-64: Emulate legacy vsyscalls

* david@...g.hm <david@...g.hm> wrote:

> > why are you cutting out in all those mails of yours what i 
> > already told you many times? the original statement from Andy was 
> > about the int cc path vs. the pf path: he said that the latter 
> > would not tolerate a few well predicted branches (if they were 
> > put there at all, that is) because the pf handler is such a 
> > critical fast path code. it is *not*. it can't be by almost 
> > definition given how much processing it has to do (it is by far 
> > one of the most complex of cpu exceptions to process).
> 
> it seems to me that such a complicated piece of code that is 
> executed so frequently is especially sensitive to anything that 
> makes it take longer

Exactly.

Firstly, fully handling the most important types of minor page faults 
takes about 2000 cycles on modern x86 hardware - just two cycles 
overhead is 0.1% overhead and in the kernel we are frequently doing 
0.01% optimizations as well ...

Secondly, we optimize the branch count, even if they are 
well-predicted: the reason is to reduce the BTB footprint which is a 
limited CPU resource like the TLB. Every BTB entry we use up reduces 
the effective BTB size visible to user-space applications.

Thirdly, we always try to optimize L1 instruction cache footprint in 
fastpaths as well and new instructions increase the icache footprint. 

Fourthly, the "single branch overhead" is the *best case* that is 
rarely achieved in practice: often there are other instructions such 
as the compare instruction that precedes the branch ...

These are the reasons why we did various micro-optimizations in the 
past like:

  b80ef10e84d8: x86: Move do_page_fault()'s error path under unlikely()
  92181f190b64: x86: optimise x86's do_page_fault (C entry point for the page fault path)
  74a0b5762713: x86: optimize page faults like all other achitectures and kill notifier cruft

So if he argues that a single condition does not matter to our page 
fault fastpath then that is just crazy talk and i'd not let him close 
to the page fault code with a ten foot pole.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/