linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86 idle: repair large-server 50-watt idle-power regression

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: <20131219181812.GC32508@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:18:12 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 idle: repair large-server 50-watt idle-power
 regression


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 06:25:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 06:07:41PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Likewise, having a barrier before the MONITOR looks sensible as well. 
> > 
> > I again have to disagree, one would expect monitor to flush all that is
> > required to start the monitor -- and it actually does so. As is
> > testified by this extra CLFLUSH being called a bug workaround.
> 
> SDM states that MONITOR is ordered like a LOAD, and a LOAD cannot 
> pass a previous STORE to the same address.

Yes ... but you could argue that CLFLUSH is neither a load nor a 
store, it's a _cache sync_ operation, with its special ordering 
properties.

> That said; there's enough holes in there to swim a titanic through, 
> seeing how MONITOR stares at an entire cacheline and LOAD/STORE 
> order is specified on location, whatever that means.

I think assuming that MONITOR is ordered as a load or better is a 
pretty safe one (and in fact the Intel documentation seems to say so) 
- I'd say MONITOR is in micro-code and essentially snoops on cache 
events on that specific cache line, and loads the cache line on a 
snoop hit?

Btw., what state is the cache line after a MONITOR instruction, is it 
loaded as shared, or as excusive? (exclusive would probably be better 
for performance.)

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/