From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
Ravi Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation: Support Enhanced IBRS on future CPUs
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 18:58:16 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807301856470.1725@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d65cbf8c-27b6-63fb-23ce-d26017953245@intel.com>
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/30/2018 05:25 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote:
> >> From: Sai Praneeth <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>
> >> Some future Intel processors may support "Enhanced IBRS" which is an
> >> "always on" mode i.e. IBRS bit in SPEC_CTRL MSR is enabled once and
> >> never disabled. According to specification[1], this should simplify
> >> software enabling and improve performance.
> > SHOULD is not really helpful. The question is whether it does improve
> > performance in practice or not. You really want to add numbers comparing
> > retpoutine and enhanced IBRS.
>
> One thing to remember from Intel's retpoline paper:
>
> > Retpoline is known to be an effective branch target injection
> > (Spectre variant 2) mitigation on Intel processors belonging to
> > family 6 (enumerated by the CPUID instruction) that do not have
> > support for enhanced IBRS. On processors that support enhanced IBRS,
> > it should be used for mitigation instead of retpoline.
>
> That's both a statement of "Intel would like you to use enhanced IBRS
> over retpoline where available" and "retpoline provides less mitigation
> on processors with enhanced IBRS compared to those without".
>
> In other words, we can _do_ performance deltas, but they won't be as
> meaningful because they won't really have apples-to-apples mitigation
> properties.
Fair enough, but this wants to be spelled out in the change log explicitely
instead of unspecific blurbs.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-30 16:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-24 20:53 Sai Praneeth Prakhya
2018-07-30 12:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-07-30 14:29 ` Dave Hansen
2018-07-30 16:58 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2018-07-30 17:07 ` Prakhya, Sai Praneeth
2018-07-30 17:11 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.21.1807301856470.1725@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=ravi.v.shankar@intel.com \
--cc=sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®