public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/i386: make sure stack-protector segment base is cache aligned
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:41:28 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AA029F8.2070002@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AA01D4F.1080707@gmail.com>

On 09/03/09 12:47, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge a écrit :
>   
>> The Intel Optimization Reference Guide says:
>>
>> 	In Intel Atom microarchitecture, the address generation unit
>> 	assumes that the segment base will be 0 by default. Non-zero
>> 	segment base will cause load and store operations to experience
>> 	a delay.
>> 		- If the segment base isn't aligned to a cache line
>> 		  boundary, the max throughput of memory operations is
>> 		  reduced to one [e]very 9 cycles.
>> 	[...]
>> 	Assembly/Compiler Coding Rule 15. (H impact, ML generality)
>> 	For Intel Atom processors, use segments with base set to 0
>> 	whenever possible; avoid non-zero segment base address that is
>> 	not aligned to cache line boundary at all cost.
>>
>> We can't avoid having a non-zero base for the stack-protector segment, but
>> we can make it cache-aligned.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
>> index 0bfcf7e..f7d2c8f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
>> @@ -403,7 +403,17 @@ extern unsigned long kernel_eflags;
>>  extern asmlinkage void ignore_sysret(void);
>>  #else	/* X86_64 */
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
>> -DECLARE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, stack_canary);
>> +/*
>> + * Make sure stack canary segment base is cached-aligned:
>> + *   "For Intel Atom processors, avoid non zero segment base address
>> + *    that is not aligned to cache line boundary at all cost."
>> + * (Optim Ref Manual Assembly/Compiler Coding Rule 15.)
>> + */
>> +struct stack_canary {
>> +	char __pad[20];		/* canary at %gs:20 */
>> +	unsigned long canary;
>> +};
>> +DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct stack_canary, stack_canary) ____cacheline_aligned;
>>     
> DECLARE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED()
>
> Or else, we'll have many holes in percpu section, because of linker encapsulation
>   

That's only cache aligned when SMP is enabled, to avoid false cacheline
sharing.  In this case we need it unconditionally cache-aligned.

    J

  reply	other threads:[~2009-09-03 20:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-09-03 19:27 [PATCH] x86/i386: make sure stack-protector segment base is cache aligned Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-09-03 19:47 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-09-03 20:41   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2009-09-03 21:07     ` Eric Dumazet
2009-09-03 21:31       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-09-04  7:58         ` [tip:x86/asm] x86/i386: Put aligned stack-canary in percpu shared_aligned section tip-bot for Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-09-03 20:03 ` [tip:x86/asm] x86/i386: Make sure stack-protector segment base is cache aligned tip-bot for Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-09-03 20:26   ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-09-03 20:45     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-09-03 21:15       ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-09-03 21:18         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-09-03 21:21           ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-09-04 14:15           ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-09-04 15:59             ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-09-04 16:06             ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-09-03 21:28         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-09-04  2:51         ` Tejun Heo
2009-09-04  2:59           ` Tejun Heo
2009-09-04  3:35             ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-09-04  3:47               ` Tejun Heo
2009-09-04  3:51                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-09-04  5:06                   ` Tejun Heo
2009-09-04  5:12                     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-09-04 16:04                     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-09-04 16:09                       ` Tejun Heo
2009-09-04 16:13                       ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-09-04 16:01               ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-09-04 16:52                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-09-04 16:57                   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge

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=4AA029F8.2070002@goop.org \
    --to=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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