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;
Message-ID: <55219f3b-992d-ccc3-ba29-7bf33465b5cc@redhat.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Jun 2023 21:18:41 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.7.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86/speculation: Disable IBRS when idle
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Robin Jarry <rjarry@redhat.com>
Cc:     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>
References: <20230616200003.745742-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <CTECMFWMMST3.9FTWRDG7FFKQ@ringo>
 <20230617122115.GA1830050@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230617122115.GA1830050@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/17/23 08:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

I got a rebound message from your mail server about incorrect message 
format. It is probably caused by some problem in my end.


> However, did you all see intel_idle_ibrs() and how that is selected for
> C6 and up?
>
> What exactly isn't working there?

We were testing on the RHEL9.2 kernel which doesn't have your 
intel_idle_ibrs() patch yet. My preliminary testing does indicate your 
patch will likely work. I will ask Jerry to test a newer RHEL9.3 kernel 
with the intel_idle_ibrs() patch to see if it helps.

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

Yes, we are planning to backport your call-depth-stuffing code, but I 
believe there is still some issue outstanding that you need to address. 
So we need a solution to work around this issue in the mean time.

Cheers,
Longman