Re: [PATCH v4 04/11] x86/bhi: Make clear_bhb_loop() effective on newer CPUs

Pawan Gupta
2025-11-24T19:31:32Z

On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 11:05:58AM +0000, david laight wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 13:26:27 -0800
> Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 10:42:24AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > On 11/21/25 10:16, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 08:50:17AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > >> On 11/21/25 08:45, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > > >>> OTOH: the global variable approach seems saner as in the macro you'd
> > > >>> have direct reference to them and so it will be more obvious how things
> > > >>> are setup.
> > > >>
> > > >> Oh, yeah, duh. You don't need to pass the variables in registers. They
> > > >> could just be read directly.
> > > >
> > > > IIUC, global variables would introduce extra memory loads that may slow
> > > > things down. I will try to measure their impact. I think those global
> > > > variables should be in the .entry.text section to play well with PTI.
> > >
> > > Really? I didn't look exhaustively, but CLEAR_BRANCH_HISTORY seems to
> > > get called pretty close to where the assembly jumps into C. Long after
> > > we're running on the kernel CR3.
> >
> > You are right. PTI is not a concern here.
> >
> > > > Also I was preferring constants because load values from global variables
> > > > may also be subject to speculation. Although any speculation should be
> > > > corrected before an indirect branch is executed because of the LFENCE after
> > > > the sequence.
> > >
> > > I guess that's a theoretical problem, but it's not a practical one.
> >
> > Probably yes. But, load from memory would certainly be slower compared to
> > immediates.
> >
> > > So I think we have 4-ish options at this point:
> > >
> > > 1. Generate the long and short sequences independently and in their
> > > entirety and ALTERNATIVE between them (the original patch)
> > > 2. Store the inner/outer loop counts in registers and:
> > > 2a. Load those registers from variables
> > > 2b. Load them from ALTERNATIVES
> >
> > Both of these look to be good options to me.
> >
> > 2b. would be my first preference, because it keeps the loop counts as
> > inline constants. The resulting sequence stays the same as it is today.
> >
> > > 3. Store the inner/outer loop counts in variables in memory
> >
> > I could be wrong, but this will likely have non-zero impact on performance.
> > I am afraid to cause any regressions in BHI mitigation. That is why I
> > preferred the least invasive approach in my previous attempts.
>
> Surely it won't be significant compared to the cost of the loop itself.
> That is the bit that really kills performance.

Correct, recent data suggests the same.

> For subtle reasons one of the mitigations that slows kernel entry caused
> a doubling of the execution time of a largely single-threaded task that
> spends almost all its time in userspace!
> (I thought I'd disabled it at compile time - but the config option
> changed underneath me...)

That is surprising. If its okay, could you please share more details about
this application? Or any other way I can reproduce this?