Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

newsroom.intel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 43 posts

Re: Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

#21

Post by hoffs »

a012 wrote: post #11
detaro wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are they saying anything about not fixing bugs? And like it or not, with the issues of the available patches breaking machines, virus scanner incompatibilities, ..., organisations will have to make decisions about when to patch.

I said they said like "the world is just overreacted, and if you insist to promptly applying patch they'll provide". It's about their tone in their first statement. And you're misleading my point here.

It seems like you're the one misleading and claiming something that isn't there.

Re: Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

#22

Post by teamhappy »

hoffs wrote: post #20
teamhappy wrote: post #5

The performance hit is (supposedly) much more significant on Haswell and older, which they forgot to include.

I own haswell and haven't felt any performance impact...

    > For context, on newer CPUs such as on Skylake and
    > beyond, Intel has refined the instructions used to
    > disable branch speculation to be more specific to
    > indirect branches, reducing the overall performance
    > penalty of the Spectre mitigation.
https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/microsoftsecure/2018/01/09/...

Re: Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

#23

Post by mtgx »

jonplackett wrote: post #14

“users who use web applications that involve complex JavaScript operations may see a somewhat higher impact (up to 10 percent based on our initial measurements).“ Ok so that’s probably most websites these days?

Yeah, my first thought was "Oh, so Gmail will be much slower then?"

Intel seems to be trying as hard as possible to define narrow scenarios in which the performance drop isn't too big and only mentioning those. In its first benchmarks, for instance, it only tested a six-core 8700K, one of its highest-end consumer products, because obviously the percentage drop would be lower on high-performance machines than on slower ones.

Re: Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

#24

Post by mkagenius »

PeterStuer wrote: post #4

Even in these PR figures, the SYSMark 2014 SE Responsiveness test results, a benchmark addition which was specifically created to unearth pain-points in typical everyday user activities, gets a serious wallop.

> New “Responsiveness” scenario. Workloads include: application launches, file launches, web browsing with multiple tabs, multi-tasking, file copying, photo manipulation, file encryption + compression, and

gone down to 86% :-(

Re: Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

#25

Post by cjbprime »

HugoDaniel wrote: post #17
sho_hn wrote: post #12

Much more so than the bugs themselves it seriously undermines my confidence in Intel that in this time of emergency, they can't bring themselves to address customers with straight talk. Clear information should take precedence over mitigating liability. Yet it's fallen to others to explain defects in their products, and people are even mostly left guessing what their attempts to fix things actually do. Screwups happe…

Do you really think this was a screwup ? Intel is a company that has a highly hierarchical structure and a very thorough process of product development and market approach. Add to that that they are historically one of the key examples of a company that plans their strategy many years ahead and I find it way more sane to default Meltdown to a premeditated conscious decision/tarde-off of their part. Like VW emissions…

It's not obvious (at least to me) that Meltdown is caused by a performance optimization. The fix to Meltdown introduces a pessimization, sure, but that's not necessarily the same thing.

Meltdown could be a simple bug that doesn't incur a perf loss when designed for properly, but happens to require an expensive fix in the field. Does anyone know?

Re: Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

#26

Post by revelation »

teamhappy wrote: post #5

The performance hit is (supposedly) much more significant on Haswell and older, which they forgot to include.

Specifically, the oldest generation they tested (Skylake) is the first to have the PCID feature that avoids the complete TLB flush on every syscall.

Continuing with their strategy of full transparency..

Re: Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

#27

Post by kogepathic »

revelation wrote: post #26
teamhappy wrote: post #5

The performance hit is (supposedly) much more significant on Haswell and older, which they forgot to include.

Specifically, the oldest generation they tested (Skylake) is the first to have the PCID feature that avoids the complete TLB flush on every syscall. Continuing with their strategy of full transparency..

> (Skylake) is the first to have the PCID feature

PCID was introduced with Westmere (2010). [1]

However it wasn't used in the Linux kernel until 4.14 because no one saw the need. [2]

[1] https://www.realworldtech.com/westmere/

[2] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20155304/does-linux-use-...

Re: Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

#29

Post by vardump »

kogepathic wrote: post #27
revelation wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically, the oldest generation they tested (Skylake) is the first to have the PCID feature that avoids the complete TLB flush on every syscall. Continuing with their strategy of full transparency..

> (Skylake) is the first to have the PCID feature PCID was introduced with Westmere (2010). [1] However it wasn't used in the Linux kernel until 4.14 because no one saw the need. [2] [1] https://www.realworldtech.com/westmere/ [2] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20155304/does-linux-use-...

But only Haswell added INVPCID.

Re: Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

#30

Post by [deleted] »

vardump wrote: post #29
kogepathic wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (Skylake) is the first to have the PCID feature PCID was introduced with Westmere (2010). [1] However it wasn't used in the Linux kernel until 4.14 because no one saw the need. [2] [1] https://www.realworldtech.com/westmere/ [2] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20155304/does-linux-use-...

But only Haswell added INVPCID.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN