Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 19:56:08 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] x86/entry/64: Always run ptregs-using syscalls on
 the slow path
Message-ID: <20151208185608.GA3004@gmail.com>
References: <cover.1449522077.git.luto@kernel.org>
 <2ff015fa6989c6a8907c73636f5f5cb99402f6c3.1449522077.git.luto@kernel.org>
 <CAMzpN2hGTMSHb7LEYC_w6grxCtGfuLmXoKhgH9vQ8hVHqmH2Fg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMzpN2iNPA5TTSPht9WZqY-7u=Msd3UOZOJtJxt-nwG8+qEMeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrXWQfjzVTNF5FBNWojwxUEcGMi36SV15d62i0zBtvCcGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMzpN2jRGcfYOqcjxPvd+ufXK=HHU+dfUftQGnLVmohBPd6o6Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMzpN2jRGcfYOqcjxPvd+ufXK=HHU+dfUftQGnLVmohBPd6o6Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1260
Lines: 35


* Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> wrote:

> > We could adjust it a bit and check whether we're in C land (by checking rsp 
> > for ts) and jump into the slow path if we aren't, but I'm not sure this is a 
> > huge win.  It does save some rodata space by avoiding duplicating the table.
> 
> The syscall table is huge.  545*8 bytes, over a full page. Duplicating it for 
> just a few different entries is wasteful.

Note that what matters more is cache footprint, not pure size: 1K of RAM overhead 
for something as fundamental as system calls is trivial cost.

So the questions to ask are along these lines:

 - what is the typical locality of access (do syscall numbers cluster in time and 
   space)

 - how frequently would the two tables be accessed (is one accessed less 
   frequently than the other?)

 - subsequently how does the effective cache footprint change with the 
   duplication?

it might still end up not being worth it - but it's not the RAM cost that is the 
main factor IMHO.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/