[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 09:40:05 +0200
From: Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@...k.tugraz.at>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
"clementine.maurice@...k.tugraz.at"
<clementine.maurice@...k.tugraz.at>,
"moritz.lipp@...k.tugraz.at"
<moritz.lipp@...k.tugraz.at>,
Michael Schwarz
<michael.schwarz@...k.tugraz.at>,
Richard Fellner
<richard.fellner@...dent.tugraz.at>,
<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, "Ingo
Molnar" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"anders.fogh@...ta-adan.de"
<anders.fogh@...ta-adan.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] x86_64: KAISER - do not map kernel in user mode
On 04.05.2017 17:47, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I'll try to read the paper. In the meantime: how different is your
> approach from then one here?
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/39283/
>
> and how different is the performance impact?
The approach sounds very similar, but we have fewer changes because we
don't want to change memory allocation but only split the virtual memory
- everything can stay where it is.
We found that the CR3 switch seems to be significantly improved in
modern microarchitectures (we performed our performance tests on a
Skylake i7-6700K). We think the TLB maybe uses the full CR3 base address
as a tag, relaxing the necessity of flushing the entire TLB upon CR3
updates a bit.
Direct runtime overhead is switching the CR3, but that's it.
Indirectly, we're potentially increasing the number of TLB entries that
are required on one or the other level of the TLB. For TLB-intense tasks
this might lead to more significant performance penalties.
I'm sure the overhead on older systems is larger than on recent systems.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
