> Our experiments show that Intel’s port assignment policies can diverge significantly from the well-documented "least-loaded eligible port" model, illustrated in Figure 1. Using carefully crafted two-instruction microbenchmarks preceded by an LFENCE, we consistently observed dynamic scheduling policies. Instead of a fixed distribution across eligible ports, the port assignment changes as the unroll factor increases, producing distinct regions separated by cutoffs. As illustrated in Figure 2 for the “LFENCE; CBW; CBW” snippet, the port scheduler employs three different strategies depending on the number of loop iterations. At lower unroll factors, one sparsest port is strongly preferred. After a first cutoff, the allocation becomes approximately uniform across all eligible ports, albeit noisy. At a second cutoff, the scheduler shifts again, favoring a different subset of ports. The second cutoff’s unroll factor is twice the first’s unroll factor. These dynamics are not isolated: we observed similar cutoff-based transitions across multiple instructions and instruction pairs, and in some cases, the behavior also depends on the order of instructions in the block or on immediate values used in operands. We believe that this might serve as a new microarchitectural attack surface which can be harnessed towards implementing, e.g., covert channels, fingerprinting, etc. Importantly, the observed cutoffs are consistent and reproducible across multiple runs, but differ between CPU generations. These findings show that static eligibility sets cannot fully describe port assignment. Instead, the allocator follows multiple hidden policies, switching between them in ways not accounted for by existing models.
uops-again.info: corner-case behaviours of port assignment on Intel processors · HackerTrans
> Our experiments show that Intel’s port assignment policies can diverge significantly from the well-documented "least-loaded eligible port" model, illustrated in Figure 1. Using carefully crafted two-instruction microbenchmarks preceded by an LFENCE, we consistently observed dynamic scheduling policies. Instead of a fixed distribution across eligible ports, the port assignment changes as the unroll factor increases, producing distinct regions separated by cutoffs. As illustrated in Figure 2 for the “LFENCE; CBW; CBW” snippet, the port scheduler employs three different strategies depending on the number of loop iterations. At lower unroll factors, one sparsest port is strongly preferred. After a first cutoff, the allocation becomes approximately uniform across all eligible ports, albeit noisy. At a second cutoff, the scheduler shifts again, favoring a different subset of ports. The second cutoff’s unroll factor is twice the first’s unroll factor. These dynamics are not isolated: we observed similar cutoff-based transitions across multiple instructions and instruction pairs, and in some cases, the behavior also depends on the order of instructions in the block or on immediate values used in operands. We believe that this might serve as a new microarchitectural attack surface which can be harnessed towards implementing, e.g., covert channels, fingerprinting, etc. Importantly, the observed cutoffs are consistent and reproducible across multiple runs, but differ between CPU generations. These findings show that static eligibility sets cannot fully describe port assignment. Instead, the allocator follows multiple hidden policies, switching between them in ways not accounted for by existing models.