linux-kernel - Re: clang asm-goto support (Was Re: [PATCH v2] x86/retpoline: Add clang support)

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20180214230718.vjeap2oilb27tlii@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Feb 2018 00:07:18 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Yatsina, Marina" <marina.yatsina@...el.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@...gle.com>,
        "Kreitzer, David L" <david.l.kreitzer@...el.com>,
        "Grischenko, Andrei L" <andrei.l.grischenko@...el.com>,
        "rnk@...gle.com" <rnk@...gle.com>,
        LLVM Developers <llvm-dev@...ts.llvm.org>,
        "ehsan@...illa.com" <ehsan@...illa.com>,
        "Tayree, Coby" <coby.tayree@...el.com>,
        Matthias Braun <matze@...unis.de>,
        Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris@...il.com>,
        James Y Knight <jyknight@...gle.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Stephen Hines <srhines@...gle.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: clang asm-goto support (Was Re: [PATCH v2] x86/retpoline: Add
 clang support)


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:

> To quantify it: I just performed a test build of a Linux distro kernel config 
> (Fedora x86-64), and counted the number of callsites that use 'asm goto' 
> functionality with the v4.15 kernel (including drivers).
> 
> The results:
> 
>                                                 Linux distro | !CONFIG_TRACING
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  total # of functions                         :      191,567 |         184,443
>  total # of instructions                      :   14,251,355 |      13,526,112
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  total # of spin_lock*() calls                :       25,246 |          25,177
>  total # of mutex_lock*() calls               :       13,062 |          12,861
>  total # of kmalloc*() calls                  :        5,148 |           5,118
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  total # of 'asm goto' usage sites            :       34,851 |          31,059
>  total # of 'asm goto' using functions        :       18,209 |          16,089
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  percent of kernel functions using 'asm goto' :         9.5% |            8.7%
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the size stats of kernel/sched/built-in.o for the same distro config:

                                                     optimized |     no asm goto
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   total # of functions                         :          765 |            764
   total # of instructions                      :       46,830 |         47,051

I.e. asm goto support reduces scheduler size by ~0.5%, which is a major generated 
code size reduction.

This doesn't count the live branch patching performance advantages: many of those 
asm goto usage sites are in hot paths, so the performance impact of it is much 
larger than that: easily a couple of percentage points in scheduler intensive 
benchmarks, as Peter mentioned.

For example here's a thread context switch benchmark comparison on a modern x86 
system running a v4.15 kernel:

  $ perf stat --repeat 20 --sync --null perf bench sched messaging -t -g 25

         no asm goto:     0.136778505 seconds time elapsed      ( stddev: +- 0.55% )
  asm goto optimized:     0.133773904 seconds time elapsed      ( stddev: +- 0.51% )

The asm goto enabled kernel is ~2.25% faster in this benchmark, and the 
performance penalty of not having asm goto support will only increase in the 
future.

i.e. it very much makes sense to implement asm goto support not just for 
compatibility reasons, but for performance reasons as well.

Thanks,

	Ingo