linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/mm: If INVPCID is available, use it to flush global mappings

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: <CALCETrWhUWjfdDS6eyB6PfrJLU8YvvrfkeeKFTo8moxq7L5t6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:35:22 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/mm: If INVPCID is available, use it to flush
 global mappings

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:37:44AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On my Skylake laptop, INVPCID function 2 (flush absolutely
>> everything) takes about 376ns, whereas saving flags, twiddling
>> CR4.PGE to flush global mappings, and restoring flags takes about
>> 539ns.
>
> FWIW, I ran your microbenchmark on the IVB laptop I have here 3 times
> and some of the numbers from each run are pretty unstable. Not that it
> means a whole lot - the thing doesn't have INVPCID support.
>
> I'm just questioning the microbenchmark and whether we should be rather
> doing those measurements with a real benchmark, whatever that means. My
> limited experience says that measuring TLB performance is hard.
>
>  ./context_switch_latency 0 thread same
>  use_xstate = 0
>  Using threads
> 1: 100000 iters at 2676.2 ns/switch
> 2: 100000 iters at 2700.2 ns/switch
> 3: 100000 iters at 2656.1 ns/switch
>
>  ./context_switch_latency 0 thread different
>  use_xstate = 0
>  Using threads
> 1: 100000 iters at 5174.8 ns/switch
> 2: 100000 iters at 5140.5 ns/switch
> 3: 100000 iters at 5292.9 ns/switch
>
>  ./context_switch_latency 0 process same
>  use_xstate = 0
>  Using a subprocess
> 1: 100000 iters at 2361.2 ns/switch
> 2: 100000 iters at 2332.2 ns/switch
> 3: 100000 iters at 3436.9 ns/switch
>
>  ./context_switch_latency 0 process different
>  use_xstate = 0
>  Using a subprocess
> 1: 100000 iters at 4713.6 ns/switch
> 2: 100000 iters at 4957.5 ns/switch
> 3: 100000 iters at 5012.2 ns/switch
>
>  ./context_switch_latency 1 thread same
>  use_xstate = 1
>  Using threads
> 1: 100000 iters at 2505.6 ns/switch
> 2: 100000 iters at 2483.1 ns/switch
> 3: 100000 iters at 2479.7 ns/switch
>
>  ./context_switch_latency 1 thread different
>  use_xstate = 1
>  Using threads
> 1: 100000 iters at 5245.9 ns/switch
> 2: 100000 iters at 5241.1 ns/switch
> 3: 100000 iters at 5220.3 ns/switch
>
>  ./context_switch_latency 1 process same
>  use_xstate = 1
>  Using a subprocess
> 1: 100000 iters at 2329.8 ns/switch
> 2: 100000 iters at 2350.2 ns/switch
> 3: 100000 iters at 2500.9 ns/switch
>
>  ./context_switch_latency 1 process different
>  use_xstate = 1
>  Using a subprocess
> 1: 100000 iters at 4970.7 ns/switch
> 2: 100000 iters at 5034.0 ns/switch
> 3: 100000 iters at 4991.6 ns/switch
>

I'll fiddle with that benchmark a little bit.  Maybe I can make it
suck less.  If anyone knows a good non-micro benchmark for this, let
me know.  I refuse to use dbus as my benchmark :)

FWIW, I benchmarked cr4 vs invpcid by adding a prctl and calling it in
a loop.  If Ingo's fpu benchmark thing ever lands, I'll gladly send a
patch to add TLB flushes to it.

--Andy