Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: save user rsp in pt_regs->sp on SYSCALL64 fastpath

From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>,
	Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: save user rsp in pt_regs->sp on SYSCALL64 fastpath
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:09:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK1hOcPRtEXayNdJ=djR1tDCf9OLb7yC27fsgezd2hxMOxwJNw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrV=n2AYVObh0URscYbRb2o+wBS9KSYOq==V92UXRmpj0Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Denys Vlasenko
> <vda.linux@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>>> usersp is IMO tolerable.  The nasty thing is the FIXUP_TOP_OF_STACK /
>>> RESTORE_TOP_OF_STACK garbage, and this patch is the main step toward
>>> killing that off completely.  I've still never convinced myself that
>>> there aren't ptrace-related info leaks in there.
>>>
>>> Denys, did you ever benchmark what happens if we use push instead of
>>> mov?  I bet that we get that cycle back and more, not to mention much
>>> less icache usage.
>>
>> Yes, I did.
>> Push conversion seems to perform the same as current, MOV-based code.
>>
>> The expected win there that we lose two huge 12-byte insns
>> which store __USER_CS and __USER_DS in iret frame.
>>
>> MOVQ imm,ofs(%rsp) has a very unfortunate encoding in x86:
>> - needs REX prefix
>> - no sing-extending imm8 form exists for it
>> - ofs in our case can't fit into 8 bits
>> - (%esp) requires SIB byte
>>
>> In my tests, each such instruction adds one cycle.
>>
>> Compare this to PUSH imm8, which is 2 bytes only.
>
> Does that mean that using push on top of this patch gets us our cycle back?

Maybe. I can't be sure about it.

In general I see a jitter of 1-2, sometimes 3 cycles even when I do changes
which merely change code size (e.g. replacing equivalent insns).
This may be caused by jump targets getting aligned differently
wrt cacheline boundaries. If second/third/fourth insn after current one
is not fetched because it did not fit into the cacheline,
then some insn decoders don't get anything to chew on.