[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dfbc88a7-8417-af05-4500-5c78b0f28b6a@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:26:27 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/13] x86/retpoline: Add initial retpoline support
On 05/01/2018 11:28, Paul Turner wrote:
>
> The "pause; jmp" sequence proved minutely faster than "lfence;jmp" which is why
> it was chosen.
>
> "pause; jmp" 33.231 cycles/call 9.517 ns/call
> "lfence; jmp" 33.354 cycles/call 9.552 ns/call
Do you have timings for a non-retpolined indirect branch with the
predictor suppressed via IBRS=1? So at least we can compute the break
even point.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists