lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/5] x86/bugs: Only harden syscalls when needed
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 04:09:33PM +0800, Yujie Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 02:09:47PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Syscall hardening (converting the syscall indirect branch to a series of
> > direct branches) has shown some performance regressions:
> >
> > - Red Hat internal testing showed up to 12% slowdowns in database
> > benchmark testing on Sapphire Rapids when the DB was stressed with 80+
> > users to cause contention.
> >
> > - The kernel test robot's will-it-scale benchmarks showed significant
> > regressions on Skylake with IBRS:
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/202404191333.178a0eed-yujie.liu@intel.com
>
> To clarify, we reported a +1.4% improvement (not regression) of
> will-it-scale futex4 benchmark on Skylake. Meanwhile we did observe some
> regressions by running other benchmarks on Ice Lake, such as:
>
> stress-ng.null.ops_per_sec -4.0% regression on Intel Xeon Gold 6346 (Ice Lake)
> unixbench.fsbuffer.throughput -1.4% regression on Intel Xeon Gold 6346 (Ice Lake)

Thanks for clarifying that. I'm not sure what I was looking at.

I also saw your email where Ice Lake showed a ~10% regression for
1e3ad78334a6. Unfortunately my patch wouldn't help with that, as it's
designed to help with older systems (e.g., Skylake) and newer (e.g.,
Sapphire Rapids) but not Ice/Cascade Lake.

Whether 1e3ad78334a6 helps or hurts seems very workload-dependent.

It would be especially interesting to see if my patch helps on the newer
systems which have the HW mitigation: Raptor Lake, Meteor Lake, Sapphire
Rapids, Emerald Rapids.

For now, maybe I'll just table this patch until we have more data.

--
Josh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 18:17    [W:0.138 / U:0.724 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site