[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160420112152.GA3408@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 13:21:52 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>, oprofile-list@...ts.sf.net,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86/intel lbr: down with test_thread_flag(TIF_IA32)
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:29:12PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> > @@ -724,7 +727,7 @@ static int branch_type(unsigned long from, unsigned long to, int abort)
> > * on 64-bit systems running 32-bit apps
> > */
> > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > - is64 = kernel_ip((unsigned long)addr) || !test_thread_flag(TIF_IA32);
> > + is64 = kernel_ip((unsigned long)addr) || user_64bit_mode(regs);
>
> Peterz, looking at this some more, would it make sense to pass
> user_regs and interrupt_regs (or whatever we'd call it) all the way
> through to here?
Urgh; again, wtf wasn't I Cc'ed to these patches?
And not sure; if we never need the user regs, calling
perf_get_user_regs() to set all that up seems like a massive waste of
cycles.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists