[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXZP-5xuOE0nWzAoa2FufMGS7bgKeQLdwS4eOhHhS225w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:34:32 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kyle Huey <khuey@...ehuey.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] x86/process: Optimize TIF_NOTSC switch
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>> > +static inline void cr4_toggle_bits(unsigned long mask)
>> > +{
>> > + unsigned long cr4;
>> > +
>> > + cr4 = this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.cr4);
>> > + cr4 ^= mask;
>> > + this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.cr4, cr4);
>> > + __write_cr4(cr4);
>> > +}
>>
>> This scares me for the same reason as BTF, although this should at
>> least be less fragile. But how about:
>
> If that is fragile then all cr4 manipulation code is fragile because it
> relies on cpu_tlbstate.cr4. The TIF flag and that per cpu thing are kept in
> sync.
True.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists