linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] x86: faster mb()+other barrier.h tweaks

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:	Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:25:24 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
	virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] x86: faster mb()+other barrier.h tweaks

On 01/12/16 14:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's
> 2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl $0,(%%e/rsp) that we use on older CPUs.
> 
> So let's use the locked variant everywhere - helps keep the code simple as
> well.
> 
> While I was at it, I found some inconsistencies in comments in
> arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h
> 
> I hope I'm not splitting this up too much - the reason is I wanted to isolate
> the code changes (that people might want to test for performance) from comment
> changes approved by Linus, from (so far unreviewed) comment change I came up
> with myself.
> 
> Lightly tested on my system.
> 
> Michael S. Tsirkin (3):
>   x86: drop mfence in favor of lock+addl
>   x86: drop a comment left over from X86_OOSTORE
>   x86: tweak the comment about use of wmb for IO
> 

I would like to get feedback from the hardware team about the
implications of this change, first.

	-hpa