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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZzXIcAi4R5yH8ZtN@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:52:48 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
	kernel-team@...a.com, hpa@...or.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCh 0/3] x86,tlb: context switch optimizations


* Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:55:50 +0100
> Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 07:27:47PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > While profiling switch_mm_irqs_off with several workloads,
> > > it appears there are two hot spots that probably don't need
> > > to be there.  
> > 
> > One of those three is causing the below here, zapping them from tip.
> > 
> 
> TL;DR: __text_poke ends up sending IPIs with interrupts disabled.
> 
> > [    3.186469]  on_each_cpu_cond_mask+0x50/0x90
> > [    3.186469]  flush_tlb_mm_range+0x1a8/0x1f0
> > [    3.186469]  ? cpu_bugs_smt_update+0x14/0x1f0
> > [    3.186469]  __text_poke+0x366/0x5d0
> 
> Here is an alternative to avoid __text_poke() from calling
> on_each_cpu_cond_mask() with IRQs disabled:
> 
> ---8<---
> From e872edeaad14c793036f290afc28000281e1b76a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 09:51:16 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] x86/alternatives: defer poking_mm TLB flush to next use

I'd argue *both* of your patches improve the code, right?

Mind sending an updated series? It might not make it into the merge window,
but these look like good changes to me.

Thanks,

	Ingo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ