linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH RFC 2/2] [x86] Optimize copy_page by re-arranging instruction sequence and saving register

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: <B2310DA9850C8743AA7AA0055500E90F0FD70D8B@SHSMSX102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Oct 2012 05:00:53 +0000
From:	"Ma, Ling" <ling.ma@...el.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@...nel.org>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"iant@...gle.com" <iant@...gle.com>,
	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC 2/2] [x86] Optimize copy_page by re-arranging
 instruction sequence and saving register

Thanks Boris!
So the patch is helpful and no impact for other/older machines,
I will re-send new version according to comments.
Any further comments are appreciated!

Regards
Ling

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:bp@...en8.de]
> Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 6:58 PM
> To: Ma, Ling
> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk; mingo@...e.hu; hpa@...or.com;
> tglx@...utronix.de; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; iant@...gle.com;
> George Spelvin
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] [x86] Optimize copy_page by re-arranging
> instruction sequence and saving register
> 
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 08:04:11PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Right, so benchmark shows around 20% speedup on Bulldozer but this is
> > a microbenchmark and before pursue this further, we need to verify
> > whether this brings any palpable speedup with a real benchmark, I
> > don't know, kernbench, netbench, whatever. Even something as boring
> as
> > kernel build. And probably check for perf regressions on the rest of
> > the uarches.
> 
> Ok, so to summarize, on AMD we're using REP MOVSQ which is even faster
> than the unrolled version. I've added the REP MOVSQ version to the
> µbenchmark. It nicely validates that we're correctly setting
> X86_FEATURE_REP_GOOD on everything >= F10h and some K8s.
> 
> So, to answer Konrad's question: those patches don't concern AMD
> machines.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.