Message ID | 20230727184600.26768-1-longman@redhat.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | x86/speculation: Disable IBRS when idle | expand |
On 7/27/23 14:45, Waiman Long wrote: > v6: > - Fix allyesconfig build error by moving __update_spec_ctrl() > helper from nospec-branch.h to spec-ctrl.h and include it in files > that need the helper. > > v5: > - Update comment in patch 1. > - Minor doc update and code twist in patch 4 as suggested by Peter and > Randy. > > v4: > - Add a new __update_spec_ctrl() helper in patch 1. > - Rebased to the latest linux kernel. > > v3: > - Drop patches 1 ("x86/speculation: Provide a debugfs file to dump > SPEC_CTRL MSRs") and 5 ("x86/idle: Disable IBRS entering mwait idle > and enable it on wakeup") for now. > - Drop the MSR restoration code in ("x86/idle: Disable IBRS when cpu > is offline") as native_play_dead() does not return. > - For patch ("intel_idle: Add ibrs_off module parameter to force > disable IBRS"), change the name from "no_ibrs" to "ibrs_off" and > document the new parameter in intel_idle.rst. > > 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. > > Commit bf5835bcdb96 ("intel_idle: Disable IBRS during long idle") > disables IBRS when the CPU enters long idle (C6 or below). However, there > are existing users out there who have set "intel_idle.max_cstate=1" > to decrease latency. Those users won't be able to benefit from this > commit. This patch series extends this commit by providing a new > "intel_idle.ibrs_off" module parameter to force disable IBRS even when > "intel_idle.max_cstate=1" at the expense of increased IRQ response > latency. It also includes a commit to allow the disabling of IBRS when > a CPU becomes offline. > > Waiman Long (4): > x86/speculation: Add __update_spec_ctrl() helper > x86/idle: Disable IBRS when cpu is offline > intel_idle: Use __update_spec_ctrl() in intel_idle_ibrs() > intel_idle: Add ibrs_off module parameter to force disable IBRS > > Documentation/admin-guide/pm/intel_idle.rst | 17 ++++++++++++++++- > arch/x86/include/asm/spec-ctrl.h | 11 +++++++++++ > arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 8 ++++++++ > drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 18 +++++++++++++----- > 4 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > Peter, Is this patch series good enough to be merged? Thanks, Longman
* Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote: > 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. Ok, that's a solid improvement, and the feature has no obvious downsides, so I've applied your series to tip:sched/core with a few edits here and there. Thanks! Ingo