[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2F6CA156-F03F-4F49-A6B9-7D1D1E1D805B@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:14:51 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
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>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64, asm: Work around AMD SYSRET SS descriptor attribute issue
I did a microbenchmark in user space... let's see if I can find it.
On April 27, 2015 1:03:29 PM PDT, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:59:11PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> It really comes down to this: it seems older cores from both Intel
>> and AMD perform better with 66 66 66 90, whereas the 0F 1F series is
>> better on newer cores.
>>
>> When I measured it, the differences were sometimes dramatic.
>
>How did you measure that? I should probably do the same on some newer
>AMD machines... We're using k8_nops on all AMD, even though the
>optimization manuals cite different NOPs on newer AMD families.
>
>Thanks.
--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists