Live data from Hacker News

The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux

phoronix.com

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux

#11

AMD seems to fare better with the patches. Its good for AMD. I remember when AMD64 came out and AMD had a lead on intel. Its good to have have some competition.

Except Intel + mitigations still much faster on most workloads than AMD without mitigations.

Yeah I don’t see what AMD has to be glad about here. Their new CPUs are not remotely competitive with Intel on realistic workloads, mainly because their cache and TLB architecture is already poor. Intel had to introduce more TLB misses to fix this, AMD starts with that.

Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux

#12
Maybe we should just give up wanting to run untrusted code safely as a failed experiment.

For example 90% of the JavaScript I run is for advertizing purposes. The pragmatic solution would be that either everybody moves to self-hosting ads, or that the neccessary telemetry for third parties is moved into a browser function. Web pages (that are not applications) should not need a "turing complete" language (in the vulgar sense of the term).

If you have real applications - like GMail or Facebook - you should run them in a sandbox, but they should not be treated differently from native apps. Yes, a native app could use Meltdown etc. to attack other apps, but usually it can compromize you even simpler since most desktop apps are not sandboxed. It can just open the memory of other apps or abuse accessibility functions. My point is, I don't expect MS Word or Photoshop to be perfectly sandboxed. I explicity trust the vendor when I install their app. If we would really trust what we trust, and really distrust what whe don't, a lot would be won.

Of course, I know that the world is not set up rationally and we'll continue to be compelled to trust untrustworthy code on our PCs, so for the time being it looks like we're stuck with the mitigations.

Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux

#13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Intel + mitigations still much faster on most workloads than AMD without mitigations.

Yeah I don’t see what AMD has to be glad about here. Their new CPUs are not remotely competitive with Intel on realistic workloads, mainly because their cache and TLB architecture is already poor. Intel had to introduce more TLB misses to fix this, AMD starts with that.

That's a pretty bold claim to make.

I assert that AMD is competitive [1] [2] and is definitely cutting into Intel sales [3] [4]. Even Intel's CEO thinks so [5].

Care to back up your claims with well known, respected, repeatable benchmarks?

[1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd...

[2] https://www.anandtech.com/show/12084/epyc-benchmarks-by-inte...

[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoorhead/2018/06/20/how-...

[4] https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/05/29/amd-keeps-chipping...

[5] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/11/amd-will-create-stiff-compet...

Even Greg-KH warns about Intel's performance due to these exploits: http://www.eweek.com/security/linux-kernel-developer-critici...

Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux

#14
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I don’t see what AMD has to be glad about here. Their new CPUs are not remotely competitive with Intel on realistic workloads, mainly because their cache and TLB architecture is already poor. Intel had to introduce more TLB misses to fix this, AMD starts with that.

That's a pretty bold claim to make. I assert that AMD is competitive [1] [2] and is definitely cutting into Intel sales [3] [4]. Even Intel's CEO thinks so [5]. Care to back up your claims with well known, respected, repeatable benchmarks? [1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd... [2] https://www.anandtech.com/show/12084/epyc-benchmarks-by-inte... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoor…

> Even Intel's CEO thinks so

Ex-CEO.

Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux

#15

AMD seems to fare better with the patches. Its good for AMD. I remember when AMD64 came out and AMD had a lead on intel. Its good to have have some competition.

Except Intel + mitigations still much faster on most workloads than AMD without mitigations.

That depends on the test and hardly "much faster"

Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux

#17

AMD seems to fare better with the patches. Its good for AMD. I remember when AMD64 came out and AMD had a lead on intel. Its good to have have some competition.

Except Intel + mitigations still much faster on most workloads than AMD without mitigations.

This isn't Bulldozer anymore. Intel has faster single thread performance on some workloads, but the difference for "most workloads" is modest and for the same money AMD is offering more cores, more memory channels and more I/O. For threaded (i.e. server) workloads it has been a solid choice even before these mitigations started eating into Intel's single thread performance lead.

Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux

#19
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty bold claim to make. I assert that AMD is competitive [1] [2] and is definitely cutting into Intel sales [3] [4]. Even Intel's CEO thinks so [5]. Care to back up your claims with well known, respected, repeatable benchmarks? [1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd... [2] https://www.anandtech.com/show/12084/epyc-benchmarks-by-inte... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoor…

> Even Intel's CEO thinks so Ex-CEO.

Obviously. ;) I wonder why?

Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux

#20
Regardless of whether the impact is big or small, you are stuck with it if you need the security. But 5-10% performance impact is completely unacceptable for the cases where you don't care about security (much) such as gaming. Given how hard it is to keep my windows machine from eating my CPU anyway with updates etc while I'm gaming: should people start booting to a special partition with a legacy OS without these mitigations, and without a lot of the unnecessary background tasks? 10% CPU might not be enough (depending on where the bottleneck is) but for 10% higher FPS I'd do it.
Post reply on HN