[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrViW_rhzYQ+re8=KMLtc=_4YDceWKLzCOk=ReEUbe+rfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:13:24 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: entry_32.S: change ESPFIX test to not touch PT_OLDSS(%esp)
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:44 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 03/09/2015 09:44 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> And remember: those zero-cost out-of-order branches turn quite
>> expensive if they *ever* mispredict. Even a 5% mispredict rate is
>> likely to mean "it's better to have a data dependency chain".
>>
>> So it could easily go either way. I'm not convinced the old code is bad at all.
>>
>
> I'm inclined to side with Linus here. I'm hesitant to change this based
> on pure speculation.
>
> To answer Andy's question: I do believe we need espfix for V86 mode as well.
>
I think we don't. Did I screw up my test?
--Andy
> -hpa
>
>
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
View attachment "vm86regs.c" of type "text/x-csrc" (1740 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists