Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932175AbeAHJ5L (ORCPT <rfc822;ralf@linux-mips.org> + 1 other);
        Mon, 8 Jan 2018 04:57:11 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:51928 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932142AbeAHJ5J (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 8 Jan 2018 04:57:09 -0500
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:57:02 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] x86, barrier: stop speculation for failed access_ok
Message-ID: <20180108095702.GE3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180106183859.1ad9ae37@alans-desktop>
 <20180106185134.dzn2en4vw2hj3p6h@ast-mbp>
 <20180106195551.3207f75d@alans-desktop>
 <20180106200912.zhzdt4qmfrojeeqe@ast-mbp>
 <20180106202213.23e553fb@alans-desktop>
 <20180106211729.cp5oet3at3hyce4o@ast-mbp>
 <20180106230507.3547c9a0@alans-desktop>
 <20180107033812.awq3vz4gdkps7tix@ast-mbp>
 <20180107135935.6ecfabd5@alans-desktop>
 <20180108025732.2mnqgqivnh5u5mfb@ast-mbp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180108025732.2mnqgqivnh5u5mfb@ast-mbp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>

On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 06:57:35PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:59:35PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:

> > lfence timing is also heavily dependent upon what work has to be done to
> > retire previous live instructions. 
> > BPF does not normally do a lot of writing so you'd expect the cost to be low.
> 
> right. to retire previous loads. Not sure what 'not a lot of writing'
> has to do with lfence.

LFENCE will wait for completion on _ALL_ prior instructions, not just
loads.

Stores are by far the most expensive instructions to wait for, as they
only complete once their value is globally visible (on x86).