linux-kernel - Re: [RFC GIT PULL] softirq: Consolidation and stack overrun fix

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: <CA+55aFwyVG4DXOEvaVTp0gE-H2Zy0Kx7Mg7RWzpxzwm_RSWEYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Sep 2013 18:19:47 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@....ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
	Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@....ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC GIT PULL] softirq: Consolidation and stack overrun fix

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> BTW, that boils down to a choice between using r13 as either a TLS for
> current or current_thread_info, or as a per-cpu pointer, which one is
> the most performance critical ?

I think you can tune most of the architecture setup to best suit your needs.

For example, on x86, we don't have much choice: the per-cpu accessors
are going to be faster than the alternatives, and there are patches
afoot to tune the preempt and rcu-readside counters to use the percpu
area (and then save/restore things at task switch time). But having
the counters natively in the thread_info struct is fine too and is
what we do now.

Generally, we've put the performance-critical stuff into
"current_thread_info" as opposed to "current", so it's likely that if
the choice is between those two, then you might want to pick %r13
pointing to the thread-info rather than the "struct task_struct" (ie
things like low-level thread flags). But which is better probably
depends on load, and again, some of it you can tweak by just making
per-architecture structure choices and making the macros point at one
or the other.

There's a few things that really depend on per-cpu areas, but I don't
think it's a huge performance issue if you have to indirect off memory
to get that. Most of the performance issues with per-cpu stuff is
about avoiding cachelines ping-ponging back and forth, not so much
about fast direct access. Of course, if some load really uses a *lot*
of percpu accesses, you get both.

The advantage of having %r13 point to thread data (which is "stable"
as far as the compiler is concerned) as opposed to having it be a
per-cpu pointer (which can change randomly due to task switching) is
that from a correctness standpoint I really do think that either
thread-info or current is *much* easier to handle than using it for
the per-cpu base pointer.

             Linus
--
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/