From: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] x86: introduce preemption disable prefix
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:25:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2054C1A9-37C1-4A5A-A716-EDAC90564D2A@vmware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2626124E-7344-42F3-AD07-0BB34D62A9EE@amacapital.net>
at 10:00 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 18, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
>>
>> at 8:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:12 PM Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
>>>> at 6:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2018, at 5:54 PM, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is sometimes beneficial to prevent preemption for very few
>>>>>> instructions, or prevent preemption for some instructions that precede
>>>>>> a branch (this latter case will be introduced in the next patches).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To provide such functionality on x86-64, we use an empty REX-prefix
>>>>>> (opcode 0x40) as an indication that preemption is disabled for the
>>>>>> following instruction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nifty!
>>>>>
>>>>> That being said, I think you have a few bugs. First, you can’t just ignore
>>>>> a rescheduling interrupt, as you introduce unbounded latency when this
>>>>> happens — you’re effectively emulating preempt_enable_no_resched(), which
>>>>> is not a drop-in replacement for preempt_enable(). To fix this, you may
>>>>> need to jump to a slow-path trampoline that calls schedule() at the end or
>>>>> consider rewinding one instruction instead. Or use TF, which is only a
>>>>> little bit terrifying…
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I didn’t pay enough attention here. For my use-case, I think that the
>>>> easiest solution would be to make synchronize_sched() ignore preemptions
>>>> that happen while the prefix is detected. It would slightly change the
>>>> meaning of the prefix.
>>
>> So thinking about it further, rewinding the instruction seems the easiest
>> and most robust solution. I’ll do it.
>>
>>>>> You also aren’t accounting for the case where you get an exception that
>>>>> is, in turn, preempted.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm.. Can you give me an example for such an exception in my use-case? I
>>>> cannot think of an exception that might be preempted (assuming #BP, #MC
>>>> cannot be preempted).
>>>
>>> Look for cond_local_irq_enable().
>>
>> I looked at it. Yet, I still don’t see how exceptions might happen in my
>> use-case, but having said that - this can be fixed too.
>
> I’m not totally certain there’s a case that matters. But it’s worth checking
>
>> To be frank, I paid relatively little attention to this subject. Any
>> feedback about the other parts and especially on the high-level approach? Is
>> modifying the retpolines in the proposed manner (assembly macros)
>> acceptable?
>
> It’s certainly a neat idea, and it could be a real speedup.
Great. So I’ll try to shape things up, and I still wait for other comments
(from others).
I’ll just mention two more patches I need to cleanup (I know I still owe you some
work, so obviously it will be done later):
1. Seccomp trampolines. On my Ubuntu, when I run Redis, systemd installs 17
BPF filters on the Redis server process that are invoked on each
system-call. Invoking each one requires an indirect branch. The patch keeps
a per-process kernel code-page that holds trampolines for these functions.
2. Binary-search for system-calls. Use the per-process kernel code-page also
to hold multiple trampolines for the 16 common system calls of a certain
process. The patch uses an indirection table and a binary-search to find the
proper trampoline.
Thanks again,
Nadav
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-18 17:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-18 0:54 [RFC PATCH 0/5] x86: dynamic indirect call promotion Nadav Amit
2018-10-18 0:54 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] x86: introduce preemption disable prefix Nadav Amit
2018-10-18 1:22 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-10-18 3:12 ` Nadav Amit
2018-10-18 3:26 ` Nadav Amit
2018-10-18 3:51 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-10-18 16:47 ` Nadav Amit
2018-10-18 17:00 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-10-18 17:25 ` Nadav Amit [this message]
2018-10-18 17:29 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-10-18 17:42 ` Nadav Amit
2018-10-19 1:08 ` Nadav Amit
2018-10-19 4:29 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-10-19 4:44 ` Nadav Amit
2018-10-20 1:22 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2018-10-19 5:00 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2018-10-19 8:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-19 14:47 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2018-10-19 8:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-19 10:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-10-19 8:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-19 14:29 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 9:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-18 7:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-18 18:14 ` Nadav Amit
2018-10-18 0:54 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] x86: patch indirect branch promotion Nadav Amit
2018-10-18 0:54 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] x86: interface for accessing indirect branch locations Nadav Amit
2018-10-18 0:54 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] x86: learning and patching indirect branch targets Nadav Amit
2018-10-18 0:54 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] x86: relpoline: disabling interface Nadav Amit
2018-10-23 18:36 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] x86: dynamic indirect call promotion Dave Hansen
2018-10-23 20:32 ` Nadav Amit
2018-10-23 20:37 ` Dave Hansen
2018-11-28 16:08 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-28 19:34 ` Nadav Amit
2018-11-29 0:38 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-29 1:40 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 2:06 ` Nadav Amit
2018-11-29 3:24 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 4:36 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-29 6:06 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 15:19 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-12-01 6:52 ` Nadav Amit
2018-12-01 14:25 ` Josh Poimboeuf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2054C1A9-37C1-4A5A-A716-EDAC90564D2A@vmware.com \
--to=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dwmw@amazon.co.uk \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).