linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86, mwaitt: introduce mwaitx idle with a configurable timer

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: <CALCETrUJAPHeyXgwUe_n+MGPK5pK2qZGhoFou2_8EufZ5u+0rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 May 2015 09:45:10 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc:	Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, "Li, Tony" <Tony.Li@....com>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86, mwaitt: introduce mwaitx idle with a
 configurable timer

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:56:32PM +0800, Huang Rui wrote:
>> Looks like good use case. Boris, could we try to implement it?
>
> Andy had some suggestions on how to do it here:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/555D3629.8080002@kernel.org
>
> which should be doable. Also, you'd probably need to set ECX[0]=0b too,
> so that MWAITX doesn't get woken up by interrupts while MWAIT-ing with
> interrupts disabled. I.e., this sequence:
>
> cli
> rdtsc
> shove the computed timeout into ebx
> mov $2,%ecx                             # this enables the timer and disables IRQs while MWAITing
> mwaitx
> sti

I must be missing something.  In this sequence, you're sleeping with
IF=0 and ECX[0] = 0, so an IRQ won't get handled.  Don't we want
ECX[0] = 1?

>
> The NMI argument is a problem though - if and NMI gets you out of
> MWAITX, a simple perf tool workload would kill all MWAITX executions.
> Which is bad. :-\

I'm not sure it's a show-stopper.  NMI handlers are meant to be fast.
If an NMI comes in between rdtsc and mwaitx, then we oversleep, but by
at most the time it takes to handle an NMI, and nothing would have
stopped us from oversleeping that long if an NMI came in right after
mwaitx returned.

--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/