[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180110131207.GL9706@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:12:07 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch RFC 5/5] x86/speculation: Add basic speculation control
code
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 02:10:10PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> It's still incredibly faster to shutdown part of the CPU temporarily
> than to flush its internal state as a whole with IBPB. If it wouldn't
> be the case ibrs_enabled 0 ibpb_enabled 2 special mode would perform
> better (but that's only enabled by default if SPEC_CTRL is not
> available and only IBPB_SUPPORT is).
Yet another bit of perhaps useful info: if you run 100% kernel
intensive computation (i.e. only interrupts on idle task or a kernel
driver doing all in kernel) ibrs_enabled 0 ibpb_enabled 2 of course is
much faster than ibrs_enabled 1 ibpb_enabled 1. As long as you don't
have frequent ring change, ibrs_enabled 0 ibpb_enabled 2 is faster.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists