Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-170687-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 22:17:41 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To: Yujie Liu <yujie.liu@intel.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com>,
	Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] x86/bugs: Only harden syscalls when needed
Message-ID: <20240507051741.4crk2pd2fuh4euyd@treble>
References: <982d05a2f669140f26500bee643011896d661094.1713559768.git.jpoimboe@kernel.org>
 <ZiYbPZ1biNCEndKZ@yujie-X299>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZiYbPZ1biNCEndKZ@yujie-X299>

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 04:09:33PM +0800, Yujie Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 02:09:47PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Syscall hardening (converting the syscall indirect branch to a series of
> > direct branches) has shown some performance regressions:
> >
> > - Red Hat internal testing showed up to 12% slowdowns in database
> >   benchmark testing on Sapphire Rapids when the DB was stressed with 80+
> >   users to cause contention.
> >
> > - The kernel test robot's will-it-scale benchmarks showed significant
> >   regressions on Skylake with IBRS:
> >   https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/202404191333.178a0eed-yujie.liu@intel.com
> 
> To clarify, we reported a +1.4% improvement (not regression) of
> will-it-scale futex4 benchmark on Skylake. Meanwhile we did observe some
> regressions by running other benchmarks on Ice Lake, such as:
> 
>     stress-ng.null.ops_per_sec -4.0% regression on Intel Xeon Gold 6346 (Ice Lake)
>     unixbench.fsbuffer.throughput -1.4% regression on Intel Xeon Gold 6346 (Ice Lake)

Thanks for clarifying that.  I'm not sure what I was looking at.

I also saw your email where Ice Lake showed a ~10% regression for
1e3ad78334a6.  Unfortunately my patch wouldn't help with that, as it's
designed to help with older systems (e.g., Skylake) and newer (e.g.,
Sapphire Rapids) but not Ice/Cascade Lake.

Whether 1e3ad78334a6 helps or hurts seems very workload-dependent.

It would be especially interesting to see if my patch helps on the newer
systems which have the HW mitigation: Raptor Lake, Meteor Lake, Sapphire
Rapids, Emerald Rapids.

For now, maybe I'll just table this patch until we have more data.

-- 
Josh