[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1515584995.22302.117.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:49:55 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/alternatives: Fix optimize_nops() checking
On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 12:45 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:36:41AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > That fixed and understood, I shall remove the offending NOPs anyway,
> > because aligning instructions in the *altinstr* section is entirely
> > pointless as they might still not be aligned when they get copied into
> > place anyway.
>
> Yap. It was still a good experiment because we found this shortcoming!
Don't suppose you want to make the alignment actually *work*? :)
Paul, how much of a win was it really? And not just in a microbenchmark
of the retpoline itself, saying "look Ma! This goes faster if I make it
take three times as many icache lines!", but overall system benchmarks?
:)
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists