[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180108095702.GE3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:57:02 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] x86, barrier: stop speculation for failed access_ok
On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 06:57:35PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:59:35PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > lfence timing is also heavily dependent upon what work has to be done to
> > retire previous live instructions.
> > BPF does not normally do a lot of writing so you'd expect the cost to be low.
>
> right. to retire previous loads. Not sure what 'not a lot of writing'
> has to do with lfence.
LFENCE will wait for completion on _ALL_ prior instructions, not just
loads.
Stores are by far the most expensive instructions to wait for, as they
only complete once their value is globally visible (on x86).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists