linux-kernel - Re: RFC: Petition Intel/AMD to add POPF

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: <64bd8281-aeb4-391b-90c6-3f5e44f0ce07@amd.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Aug 2016 19:30:54 +0200
From:	Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	"Johannes Berg" <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
	Sara Sharon <sara.sharon@...el.com>,
	"Adrian Hunter" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	<x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Petition Intel/AMD to add POPF_IF insn

Well first of all you actually CCed AMDs graphics developers. So Alex 
and I can't say much about CPU optimizations.

Additional to that a comment below.

Am 17.08.2016 um 19:20 schrieb Denys Vlasenko:
> Last year, a proposal was floated to avoid costly POPF.
> In particular, each spin_unlock_irqrestore() does it,
> a rather common operation.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/21/290
>     [RFC PATCH] x86/asm/irq: Don't use POPF but STI
>
> * Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>> > Another different approach would be to formally state that
>> > pv_irq_ops.save_fl() needs to return all the flags, which would
>> > make local_irq_save() safe to use in this circumstance, but that
>> > makes a hotpath longer for the sake of a single boot time check.
>>
>> ...which reminds me:
>>
>> Why does native_restore_fl restore anything other than IF?  A branch
>> and sti should be considerably faster than popf.
>
>
> Ingo agreed:
> ====
> Yes, this has come up in the past, something like the patch below?
>
> Totally untested and not signed off yet: because we'd first have to
> make sure (via irq flags debugging) that it's not used in reverse, to
> re-disable interrupts:
>     local_irq_save(flags);
>     local_irq_enable();
>     ...
>     local_irq_restore(flags); /* effective local_irq_disable() */
> I don't think we have many (any?) such patterns left, but it has to be
> checked first. If we have such cases then we'll have to use different
> primitives there.
> ====
>
> Linus replied:
> =====
> "popf" is fast for the "no changes to IF" case, and is a smaller
> instruction anyway.
> ====
>
>
> This basically shot down the proposal.
>
> But in my measurements POPF is not fast even in the case where restored
> flags are not changes at all:
>
>                 mov     $200*1000*1000, %eax
>                 pushf
>                 pop     %rbx
>                 .balign 64
> loop:           push    %rbx
>                 popf
>                 dec     %eax
>                 jnz     loop
>
> # perf stat -r20 ./popf_1g
>      4,929,012,093      cycles                    #    3.412 
> GHz                      ( +-  0.02% )
>        835,721,371      instructions              #    0.17  insn per 
> cycle           ( +-  0.02% )
>        1.446185359 seconds time 
> elapsed                                          ( +-  0.46% )
>
> If I replace POPF with a pop into an unused register, I get this:

You are comparing apples and bananas here.

The microcode path in the CPUs will probably through away the read if 
you don't actually use the register value.

Regards,
Christian.

>
> loop:           push    %rbx
>                 pop     %rcx
>                 dec     %eax
>                 jnz     loop
>
>        209,247,645      cycles                    #    3.209 
> GHz                      ( +-  0.11% )
>        801,898,016      instructions              #    3.83  insn per 
> cycle           ( +-  0.00% )
>        0.066210725 seconds time 
> elapsed                                          ( +-  0.59% )
>
>
> IOW, POPF takes at least 6 cycles.
>
>
> Linus does have a point that a "test+branch+STI" may end up not a 
> clear win because of the branch.
>
> But the need to restore IF flag exists, it is necessary not only for 
> Linux, but for any OS
> running on x86: they all have some sort of spinlock.
>
> The addition of a POPF instruction variant which looks only at IF bit 
> and changes
> only that bit in EFLAGS may be a good idea, for all OSes.
>
> I propose that we ask Intel / AMD to do that.
>
> Maybe by the "ignored prefix" trick which was used when LZCNT insn was 
> introduced
> as REPZ-prefixed BSR?
> Currently, REPZ POPF (f3 9d) insn does execute. Redefine this opcode as
> POPF_IF. Then the same kernel will work on old and new CPUs.
>
> CC'ing some @intel and @amd emails...