[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrV34q-BP2w8A1s82-a8Hg062=RYzk+SCOa31W7ftsznPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 11:52:02 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/TSC: Use RDTSCP
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:46 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
>
> Currently, the kernel uses
>
> [LM]FENCE; RDTSC
>
> in the timekeeping code, to guarantee monotonicity of time where the
> *FENCE is selected based on vendor.
>
> Replace that sequence with RDTSCP which is faster or on-par and gives
> the same guarantees.
>
> A microbenchmark on Intel shows that the change is on-par.
>
> On AMD, the change is either on-par with the current LFENCE-prefixed
> RDTSC and some are slightly better with RDTSCP.
>
> The comparison is done with the LFENCE-prefixed RDTSC (and not with the
> MFENCE-prefixed one, as one would normally expect) because all modern
> AMD families make LFENCE serializing and thus avoid the heavy MFENCE by
> effectively enabling X86_FEATURE_LFENCE_RDTSC.
>
I thought I benchmarked this on Intel at some point and found the
LFENCE;RDTSC variant to be slightly faster. But I believe you, so:
Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists