lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: STIBP by default.. Revert?
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> > This was marked for stable, and honestly, nowhere in the discussion
> > did I see any mention of just *how* bad the performance impact of this
> > was.
>
> Yeah. This was an oversight - we'll fix it!
>
> > When performance goes down by 50% on some loads, people need to start
> > asking themselves whether it was worth it. It's apparently better to
> > just disable SMT entirely, which is what security-conscious people do
> > anyway.
> >
> > So why do that STIBP slow-down by default when the people who *really*
> > care already disabled SMT?
> >
> > I think we should use the same logic as for L1TF: we default to
> > something that doesn't kill performance. Warn once about it, and let
> > the crazy people say "I'd rather take a 50% performance hit than
> > worry about a theoretical issue".
>
> Yeah, absolutely.
>
> We'll also require performance measurements in changelogs enabling any
> sort of mitigation feature from now on - this requirement was implicit
> but 53c613fe6349 flew in under the radar, so it's going to be explicit an
> explicit requirement.

Do you already have an idea whether you'd proceed with Tim's patchset for
current cycle? If so, great as far as I am concerned. If not, I'll send a
patch that switches this to opt-in via kernel cmdline (+boot-time warning
if not mitigated).

Thanks,

--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-19 09:44    [W:0.087 / U:16.416 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site