kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH v5 04/10] arm64: Add __flush_tlb

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170823165842.k5lbxom45avvd7g2@smitten>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:58:42 -0600
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
	Marco Benatto <marco.antonio.780@...il.com>,
	Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/10] arm64: Add __flush_tlb_one()

Hi Mark,

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> That said, is there any reason not to use flush_tlb_kernel_range()
> directly?

So it turns out that there is a difference between __flush_tlb_one() and
flush_tlb_kernel_range() on x86: flush_tlb_kernel_range() flushes all the TLBs
via on_each_cpu(), where as __flush_tlb_one() only flushes the local TLB (which
I think is enough here).

As you might expect, this is quite a performance hit (at least under kvm), I
ran a little kernbench:

# __flush_tlb_one
Wed Aug 23 15:47:33 UTC 2017
4.13.0-rc5+
Average Half load -j 2 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 50.3233 (1.82716)
User Time 87.1233 (1.26871)
System Time 15.36 (0.500899)
Percent CPU 203.667 (4.04145)
Context Switches 7350.33 (1339.65)
Sleeps 16008.3 (980.362)

Average Optimal load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 27.4267 (0.215019)
User Time 88.6983 (1.91501)
System Time 13.1933 (2.39488)
Percent CPU 286.333 (90.6083)
Context Switches 11393 (4509.14)
Sleeps 15764.7 (698.048)

# flush_tlb_kernel_range()
Wed Aug 23 16:00:03 UTC 2017
4.13.0-rc5+
Average Half load -j 2 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 86.57 (1.06099)
User Time 103.25 (1.85475)
System Time 75.4433 (0.415852)
Percent CPU 205.667 (3.21455)
Context Switches 9363.33 (1361.57)
Sleeps 14703.3 (1439.12)

Average Optimal load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 51.27 (0.615873)
User Time 110.328 (7.93884)
System Time 74.06 (1.55788)
Percent CPU 288 (90.2197)
Context Switches 16557.5 (7930.01)
Sleeps 14774.7 (921.746)

So, I think we need to keep something like __flush_tlb_one around.
I'll call it flush_one_local_tlb() for now, and will cc x86@ on the
next version to see if they have any insight.

Cheers,

Tycho

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.