[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJcbSZHOuxy5BVxD0xJUdQfB-OMgbvfiP-2CJzf52K-7JZAy-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:16:43 -0700
From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
Peter Foley <pefoley2@...oley.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Sparse Mailing-list <linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: x86: PIE support and option to extend KASLR randomization
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> ( Sorry about the delay in answering this. I could blame the delay on the merge
> window, but in reality I've been procrastinating this is due to the permanent,
> non-trivial impact PIE has on generated C code. )
>
> * Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) PIE sometime needs two instructions to represent a single
>> instruction on mcmodel=kernel.
>
> What again is the typical frequency of this occurring in an x86-64 defconfig
> kernel, with the very latest GCC?
I am not sure what is the best way to measure that.
>
> Also, to make sure: which unwinder did you use for your measurements,
> frame-pointers or ORC? Please use ORC only for future numbers, as
> frame-pointers is obsolete from a performance measurement POV.
I used the default configuration which uses frame-pointer. I built all
the different binaries with ORC and I see an improvement in size:
On latest revision (just built and ran performance tests this week):
With framepointer: PIE .text is 0.837324% than baseline
With ORC: PIE .text is 0.814224% than baseline
Comparing baselines only, ORC is -2.849832% than frame-pointers.
>
>> 2) GCC does not optimize switches in PIE in order to reduce relocations:
>
> Hopefully this can either be fixed in GCC or at least influenced via a compiler
> switch in the future.
>
>> The switches are the biggest increase on small functions but I don't
>> think they represent a large portion of the difference (number 1 is).
>
> Ok.
>
>> A side note, while testing gcc 7.2.0 on hackbench I have seen the PIE
>> kernel being faster by 1% across multiple runs (comparing 50 runs done
>> across 5 reboots twice). I don't think PIE is faster than a
>> mcmodel=kernel but recent versions of gcc makes them fairly similar.
>
> So I think we are down to an overhead range where the inherent noise (both random
> and systematic one) in 'hackbench' overwhelms the signal we are trying to measure.
>
> So I think it's the kernel .text size change that is the best noise-free proxy for
> the overhead impact of PIE.
I agree but it might be hard to measure the exact impact. What is
acceptable and what is not?
>
> It doesn't hurt to double check actual real performance as well, just don't expect
> there to be much of a signal for anything but fully cached microbenchmark
> workloads.
That's aligned with what I see in the latest performance testing.
Performance is close enough that it is hard to get exact numbers (pie
is just a bit slower than baseline on hackench (~1%)).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
Thomas
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.
