[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1405022222570.6261@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 22:30:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/HACK] x86: Fast return to kernel
On Fri, 2 May 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Also, are you *really* sure that "popf" has the same one-instruction
> > interrupt shadow that "sti" has? Because I'm not at all sure that is
> > true, and it's not documented as far as I can tell. In contrast, the
> > one-instruction shadow after "sti" very much _is_ documented.
>
> Yeah, I'm pretty sure about this. The only instructions with an
> interrupt shadow are "sti", "mov ss" and "pop ss".
>
> There may be specific microarchitectures that do it for a "popf" that
> enables interrupts too, but that is not documented _anywhere_ I could
> find.
So what about manipulating the stack so that the popf does not enable
interrupts and do an explicit sti to get the benefit of the
one-instruction shadow ?
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists