linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very

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:	Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:35:43 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, ddaney.cavm@...il.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups
 + docs

On 02/21/2012 11:25 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> There is a fundamental assymetry, and intentionally so. You 
> *really* have to think what the common case is, and make sure 
> the build defaults to that. It's not the end of the world to 
> have it flipped over, but there's costs and those costs are 
> higher even in the branch path than a regular 
> likely()/unlikely().
> 

No, not really -- it's still an unconditional branch, which means you
will not tax the branch predictor in any way and which can be followed
by the front end without taking a speculation hit.  So although there is
an out-of-line penalty -- which you hit for any conditional, after all
you can only have *one* piece of code which is straight line -- it
should be less than for a normal conditional branch.

> So you are rather wrong about your expectations - I think that 
> is one more piece of evidence that the naming was less than 
> optimal.
> 
>> So the key aspect of this is the staticness of the 
>> conditional, NOT the degree of bias of the branch.  Hence my 
>> past insistence on the "static_branch" name (rather than 
>> "jump_label")... the branch part can be omitted, as an 
>> implementation detail, but the staticness of it is its 
>> absolutely key defining characteristic.
> 
> I don't think you understand this facility as well as you think 
> you do.

Uh, no, I do... see the above, but combine that of course with the sheer
astronomical cost of flipping the conditional.

	-hpa


-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/