[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVayvjbnF_ancsnUKqaMPiPduAhrykU7McU6VpouLZDnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 09:26:11 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"open list:USER-MODE LINUX (UML)"
<user-mode-linux-user@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Robert O'Callahan" <robert@...llahan.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 6/7] x86/arch_prctl: Add ARCH_[GET|SET]_CPUID
On Nov 21, 2016 12:27 AM, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Nov 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com> wrote:
> > > > + if (test_tsk_thread_flag(prev_p, TIF_NOCPUID) ^
> > > > + test_tsk_thread_flag(next_p, TIF_NOCPUID)) {
> > > > + set_cpuid_faulting(test_tsk_thread_flag(next_p, TIF_NOCPUID));
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Why not cache the required MSR value in the task struct instead?
> > >
> > > That would allow something much more obvious and much faster, like:
> > >
> > > if (prev_p->thread.misc_features_val != next_p->thread.misc_features_val)
> > > wrmsrl(MSR_MISC_FEATURES_ENABLES, next_p->thread.misc_features_val);
> > >
> > > (The TIF flag maintenance is still required to get into __switch_to_xtra().)
> > >
> > > It would also be easy to extend without extra overhead, should any other feature
> > > bit be added to the MSR in the future.
> >
> > I doubt that. There are feature enable bits coming up which are not related to
> > tasks.
>
> Any inefficiencies resulting from such features should IMHO be carried by those
> features, not by per task features - but:
>
> > [...] So if we have switches enabling/disabling global features, then we would
> > be forced to chase all threads in order to update all misc_features thread
> > variables. Surely not what we want to do.
>
> What switches would those be? We generally don't twiddle global CPU features post
> bootup - we pick a model on bootup and go with that.
I don't see what problem we're trying to solve here. If we end up
with a mix of global (and changeable!) features and per-task features,
we can just do:
wrmsrl(MSR_MISC_FEATURES_ENABLES, global_misc_features_val |
next_p->thread.misc_features_val);
This is *still* way faster than rdmsr.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists