mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>
Cc: 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 07:29:09 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d65cbf8c-27b6-63fb-23ce-d26017953245@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807301423260.2518@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>

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.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-07-30 14:29 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 [this message]
2018-07-30 16:58     ` Thomas Gleixner
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=d65cbf8c-27b6-63fb-23ce-d26017953245@intel.com \
    --to=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=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --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®