Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 17 Jun 2023 14:21:15 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Robin Jarry <rjarry@redhat.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> 
        , Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>, Pawan Gupta
        <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Dietmar Eggemann
        <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ben
        Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Daniel
        Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>, Valentin Schneider" 
        <vschneid@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, Joe Mario <jmario@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86/speculation: Disable IBRS when idle
Message-ID: <20230617122115.GA1830050@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230616200003.745742-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <CTECMFWMMST3.9FTWRDG7FFKQ@ringo>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CTECMFWMMST3.9FTWRDG7FFKQ@ringo>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 10:14:52PM +0200, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Waiman Long, Jun 16, 2023 at 21:59:
> > For Intel processors that need to turn on IBRS to protect against
> > Spectre v2 and Retbleed, the IBRS bit in the SPEC_CTRL MSR affects
> > the performance of the whole core even if only one thread is turning
> > it on when running in the kernel. For user space heavy applications,
> > the performance impact of occasionally turning IBRS on during syscalls
> > shouldn't be significant. Unfortunately, that is not the case when the
> > sibling thread is idling in the kernel. In that case, the performance
> > impact can be significant.
> >
> > When DPDK is running on an isolated CPU thread processing network packets
> > in user space while its sibling thread is idle. The performance of the
> > busy DPDK thread with IBRS on and off in the sibling idle thread are:
> >
> >                                 IBRS on               IBRS off
> >                                 -------               --------
> >   packets/second:                  7.8M                  10.4M
> >   avg tsc cycles/packet:         282.26                 209.86
> >
> > This is a 25% performance degradation. The test system is a Intel Xeon
> > 4114 CPU @ 2.20GHz.
> >
> > This patch series turns off IBRS when in various idle mode to eliminate
> > the performance impact of the idling thread on its busy sibling thread.
> 
> Hi Longman,
> 
> thanks a lot for the quick turnaround on this issue.
> 
> Tested-by: Robin Jarry <rjarry@redhat.com>

I can't see the patches -- they didn't arrive in my mailbox nor can I
find them in the archive, in fact this here mail is the only evidence
they exist at all.

However, did you all see intel_idle_ibrs() and how that is selected for
C6 and up?

What exactly isn't working there?

Also, instead of investing more in this IBRS trainwreck, did you all try
call-depth-stuffing ?