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:	Wed, 02 May 2012 17:24:09 +0800
From:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
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 04/30/2012 06:54 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:

> 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.



For some of scenario, above equation can be modified as:
(512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X * 140ns(assumed invlpg cost)

When thread number less than cpu numbers, balance point can up to 1/2
TLB entries.

When thread number is equal to cpu number with HT, on our SNB EP
machine, the balance point is 1/16 TLB entries, on NHM EP machine,
balance at 1/32. So, need to change FLUSHALL_BAR to 32.

when thread number is bigger than cpu number, context switch eat all
improvement. the memory access latency is same as unpatched kernel.

--
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/