linux-kernel - [RFC PATCH 2/4] KVM: x86: Reduce retpoline performance impact in slot_handle_level

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1517961794-14972-3-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
Date:   Wed,  7 Feb 2018 00:03:12 +0000
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
To:     tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bp@...en8.de, peterz@...radead.org,
        tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com
Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/4] KVM: x86: Reduce retpoline performance impact in slot_handle_level_range()

With retpoline, tight loops of "call this function for every XXX" are
very much pessimised by taking a prediction miss *every* time. This one
showed up very high in our early testing.

By marking the iterator slot_handle_…() functions always_inline, we can
ensure that the indirect function call can be optimised away into a
direct call and it actually generates slightly smaller code because
some of the other conditionals can get optimised away too.

Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
---
 arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
index 2b8eb4d..cc83bdc 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
@@ -5058,7 +5058,7 @@ void kvm_mmu_uninit_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
 typedef bool (*slot_level_handler) (struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_rmap_head *rmap_head);
 
 /* The caller should hold mmu-lock before calling this function. */
-static bool
+static __always_inline bool
 slot_handle_level_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
 			slot_level_handler fn, int start_level, int end_level,
 			gfn_t start_gfn, gfn_t end_gfn, bool lock_flush_tlb)
@@ -5088,7 +5088,7 @@ slot_handle_level_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
 	return flush;
 }
 
-static bool
+static __always_inline bool
 slot_handle_level(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
 		  slot_level_handler fn, int start_level, int end_level,
 		  bool lock_flush_tlb)
@@ -5099,7 +5099,7 @@ slot_handle_level(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
 			lock_flush_tlb);
 }
 
-static bool
+static __always_inline bool
 slot_handle_all_level(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
 		      slot_level_handler fn, bool lock_flush_tlb)
 {
@@ -5107,7 +5107,7 @@ slot_handle_all_level(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
 				 PT_MAX_HUGEPAGE_LEVEL, lock_flush_tlb);
 }
 
-static bool
+static __always_inline bool
 slot_handle_large_level(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
 			slot_level_handler fn, bool lock_flush_tlb)
 {
@@ -5115,7 +5115,7 @@ slot_handle_large_level(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
 				 PT_MAX_HUGEPAGE_LEVEL, lock_flush_tlb);
 }
 
-static bool
+static __always_inline bool
 slot_handle_leaf(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
 		 slot_level_handler fn, bool lock_flush_tlb)
 {
-- 
2.7.4