> On Mar 17, 2022, at 5:16 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> On 3/17/22 13:32, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> I’m not married to this patch, but before a revert it would be good
>> to know why it even matters. I wonder whether you can confirm that
>> reverting the patch (without the rest of the series) even helps. If
>> it does, I’ll try to run some tests to understand what the heck is
>> going on.
> 
> I went back and tested on a "Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8086K CPU @ 4.00GHz"
> which is evidently a 6-core "Coffee Lake".  It needs retpolines:
> 
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/spectre_v2:Mitigation: Full
> generic retpoline, IBPB: conditional, IBRS_FW, STIBP: conditional, RSB
> filling
> 
> I ran the will-it-scale test:
> 
> 	./malloc1_threads -s 30 -t 12
> 
> and took the 30-second average "ops/sec" at the two commits:
> 
> 	4c1ba3923e:197876
> 	6035152d8e:199367 +0.75%
> 
> Where bigger is better.  So, a small win, but probably mostly in the
> noise.  The number of IPIs definitely went up, probably 3-4% to get that
> win.
> 
> IPI costs go up the more threads you throw at it.  The retpolines do
> too, though because you do *more* of them.  Systems with no retpolines
> get hit harder by the IPI costs and have no upsides from removing the
> retpoline.
> 
> So, we've got a small (<1%, possibly zero) win on the bulk of systems
> (which have retpolines).  Newer, retpoline-free systems see a
> double-digit regression.  The bigger the system, the bigger the
> regression (probably).
> 
> I tend to think the bigger regression wins and we should probably revert
> the patch, or at least back out its behavior.
> 
> Nadav, do you have some different data or a different take?

Thanks for testing.

I don’t have other data right now. Let me run some measurements later
tonight. I understand your explanation, but I still do not see how
much “later” can the lazy check be that it really matters. Just
strange.