linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: entry_64.S: use PUSH insns to build pt

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, 18 Mar 2015 14:22:07 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: entry_64.S: use PUSH insns to build pt_regs on stack

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 03/18/2015 10:01 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> We lose a number of large insns there:
>>>
>>>     text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>>>     9863       0       0    9863    2687 entry_64_before.o
>>>     9671       0       0    9671    25c7 entry_64.o
>>>
>>> What's more important, we convert two "MOVQ $imm,off(%rsp)" to "PUSH $imm"
>>> (the ones which fill pt_regs->cs,ss).
>>>
>>> Before this patch, placing them on fast path was slowing it down by two cycles:
>>> this form of MOV is very large, 12 bytes, and this probably reduces decode bandwidth
>>> to one insn per cycle when it meets them.
>>> Therefore they were living in FIXUP_TOP_OF_STACK instead (away from hot path).
>>
>> Does that mean that this has zero performance impact, or is it
>> actually a speedup?
>
>
> No, it's not a speedup because those big bad instructions weren't
> on hot path to begin with.
>
> We want them to be there.
>
> Inserting them in a form of MOVs into hot path (say, in order
> to eliminate FIXUP_TOP_OF_STACK) *would be* a slowdown.
>
> But we switch to PUSH method, and then inserting them _as PUSHes_
> seems to be a wash.
>

Sorry, what I meant was: what was the performance impact of this patch
on fast-path syscalls?

--Andy
--
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/