Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 22:09:32 +1000 From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>, Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, arozansk@...hat.com, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>, "axboe\@kernel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>, "x86\@kernel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, "kernel-hardening\@lists.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] x86: Implement fast refcount overflow protection Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 04:38:06PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > >> What I'm not entirely clear on is what the best trade off is in terms of >> overhead vs checks. The summary of behaviour between the fast and full >> versions you promised Ingo will help there I think. > > That's something that's probably completely different for PPC than it is > for x86. Yeah definitely. I guess I see the x86 version as a lower bound on the semantics we'd need to implement and still claim to implement the refcount stuff. > Both because your primitive is LL/SC and thus the saturation > semantics we need a cmpxchg loop for are more natural in your case Yay! > anyway, and the fact that your LL/SC is horrendously slow in any case. Boo :/ Just kidding. I suspect you're right that we can probably pack a reasonable amount of tests in the body of the LL/SC and not notice. > Also, I still haven't seen an actual benchmark where our cmpxchg loop > actually regresses anything, just a lot of yelling about potential > regressions :/ Heh yeah. Though I have looked at the code it generates on PPC and it's not sleek, though I guess that's not a benchmark is it :) cheers
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.