lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: 2.5isms
From
Date

>
> I'm curious about a couple of points though. First, is that it is basically
> just adding a cache colouring to the stack, right? In that case why do only
> older HT CPUs have bad performance without it? And wouldn't it possibly make
> even non HT CPUs possibly slightly more efficient WRT caching the stacks of
> multiple processes?

it's a win on more than older HT cpus. It's just that those suffer it
the most... (since there you have 2 "cpus" share the cache, meaning you
get double the aliasing)


> Second, on what workloads does performance suffer, can you remember? I wonder
> if natural variations in the stack pointer as the program runs would mitigate
> the effect of this on all but micro benchmarks?

one of the problem cases I remember is network daemons all waiting in
accept() for connections. All from the same codepath basically.
Randomizing the stackpointer is a gain for that on all cpus that have
finite affinity on their caches.


> But even if that were so so, it seems simple enough that I don't have any
> real problem with keeping it of course.

The reason my patch does it much more is that it makes it a step harder
to write exploits for stack buffer overflows.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans