linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/10] perf/x86: Improve HT workaround GP counter constraint

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: <20150523082601.GB7025@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 23 May 2015 10:26:01 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] perf/x86: Improve HT workaround GP counter
 constraint


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

> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 06:40:49AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 06:29:47AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > >> > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 06:07:00AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> One other thing I noticed is that the --n_excl needs to be protected by the
> > >> >> excl_cntrs->lock in put_excl_constraints().
> > >> >
> > >> > Nah, its strictly per cpu.
> > >>
> > >> No. the excl_cntrs struct is pointed to by cpuc but it is shared between the
> > >> sibling HT. Otherwise this would not work!
> > >
> > > n_excl is per cpuc, see the trickery with has_exclusive vs
> > > exclusive_present on how I avoid the lock.
> > 
> > Yes, but I believe  you create a store forward penalty with this.
> > You store 16bits and you load 32 bits on the same cache line.

Same cacheline access has no such penalty: only if the partial access 
is for the same word.

> The store and load are fairly well spaced -- the entire scheduling 
> fast path is in between.
> 
> And such a penalty is still cheap compared to locking, no?

The 'penalty' is essentially just a delay in the execution of the 
load, if the store has not finished yet: typically less than 10 
cycles, around 3 cycles on recent uarchs.

So it should not be a big issue if there's indeed so much code between 
them - probably it's not even causing any delay anywhere.

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/