From: Anand K Mistry <amistry@google.com>
To: x86@kernel.org
Cc: joelaf@google.com, asteinhauser@google.com, bp@alien8.de,
tglx@linutronix.de, Anand K Mistry <amistry@google.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
"Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@collabora.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Jay Lang <jaytlang@mit.edu>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] x86/speculation: Add finer control for when to issue IBPB
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 18:44:08 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210429084410.783998-1-amistry@google.com> (raw)
It is documented in Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/spectre.rst, that
disabling indirect branch speculation for a user-space process creates
more overhead and cause it to run slower. The performance hit varies by
CPU, but on the AMD A4-9120C and A6-9220C CPUs, a simple ping-pong using
pipes between two processes runs ~10x slower when disabling IB
speculation.
Patch 2, included in this RFC but not intended for commit, is a simple
program that demonstrates this issue. Running on a A4-9120C without IB
speculation disabled, each process ping-pong takes ~7us:
localhost ~ # taskset 1 /usr/local/bin/test
...
iters: 262144, t: 1936300, iter/sec: 135383, us/iter: 7
But when IB speculation is disabled, that number increases
significantly:
localhost ~ # taskset 1 /usr/local/bin/test d
...
iters: 16384, t: 1500518, iter/sec: 10918, us/iter: 91
Although this test is a worst-case scenario, we can also consider a real
situation: an audio server (i.e. pulse). If we imagine a low-latency
capture, with 10ms packets and a concurrent task on the same CPU (i.e.
video encoding, for a video call), the audio server will preempt the
CPU at a rate of 100HZ. At 91us overhead per preemption (switching to
and from the audio process), that's 0.9% overhead for one process doing
preemption. In real-world testing (on a A4-9120C), I've seen 9% of CPU
used by IBPB when doing a 2-person video call.
With this patch, the number of IBPBs issued can be reduced to the
minimum necessary, only when there's a potential attacker->victim
process switch.
Running on the same A4-9120C device, this patch reduces the performance
hit of IBPB by ~half, as expected:
localhost ~ # taskset 1 /usr/local/bin/test ds
...
iters: 32768, t: 1824043, iter/sec: 17964, us/iter: 55
It should be noted, CPUs from multiple vendors experience a performance
hit due to IBPB. I also tested a Intel i3-8130U which sees a noticable
(~2x) increase in process switch time due to IBPB.
IB spec enabled:
localhost ~ # taskset 1 /usr/local/bin/test
...
iters: 262144, t: 1210821us, iter/sec: 216501, us/iter: 4
IB spec disabled:
localhost ~ # taskset 1 /usr/local/bin/test d
...
iters: 131072, t: 1257583us, iter/sec: 104225, us/iter: 9
Open questions:
- There are a significant number of task flags, which also now reaches the
limit of the 'long' on 32-bit systems. Should the 'mode' flags be
stored somewhere else?
- Having x86-specific flags in linux/sched.h feels wrong. However, this
is the mechanism for doing atomic flag updates. Is there an alternate
approach?
Open tasks:
- Documentation
- Naming
Changes in v2:
- Make flag per-process using prctl().
Anand K Mistry (2):
x86/speculation: Allow per-process control of when to issue IBPB
selftests: Benchmark for the cost of disabling IB speculation
arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h | 4 +
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c | 56 +++++++++
arch/x86/kernel/process.c | 10 ++
arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 51 ++++++--
include/linux/sched.h | 10 ++
include/uapi/linux/prctl.h | 5 +
.../testing/selftests/ib_spec/ib_spec_bench.c | 109 ++++++++++++++++++
7 files changed, 236 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/ib_spec/ib_spec_bench.c
--
2.31.1.498.g6c1eba8ee3d-goog
next reply other threads:[~2021-04-29 8:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-29 8:44 Anand K Mistry [this message]
2021-04-29 8:44 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] selftests: Benchmark for the cost of disabling IB speculation Anand K Mistry
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210429084410.783998-1-amistry@google.com \
--to=amistry@google.com \
--cc=asteinhauser@google.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=chang.seok.bae@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jaytlang@mit.edu \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=krisman@collabora.com \
--cc=laijs@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=pcc@google.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox