linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb

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:	Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:54:40 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
To:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc:	andi.kleen@...el.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, jeremy@...p.org,
	chrisw@...s-sol.org, akataria@...are.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	fweisbec@...il.com, riel@...hat.com, luto@....edu, avi@...hat.com,
	len.brown@...el.com, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
	dhowells@...hat.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com, borislav.petkov@....com,
	yinghai@...nel.org, cpw@....com, steiner@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yongjie.ren@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in
 flush_tlb_range

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 04:51:38PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the
> flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not
> the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to
> flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later
> remain TLB lines accessing.
> 
> But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can
> compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU.
> 
> So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at:
> 512 * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) =
> x(TLB flush entries) * 140ns(assumed invlpg cost)
> 
> Here, x is about 360, that is about 5/8 of 512 entries.
> 
> But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the
> assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And
> 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are
> accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when
> the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries.
> Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any
> suggestions are welcomed.

You could find the proper value empirically here by replacing the
FLUSHALL_BAR thing with a variable and exporting it through procfs or
sysfs or whatever, only for testing purposes, and letting mprotect.c
set it to a different value each time. Then run a bunch of times with
different thread counts and invalidation entries count and see which
combination performs best.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
--
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/