[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171122193719.GM22648@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:37:19 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] arm64: Unmap the kernel whilst running in
userspace (KAISER)
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 06:20:39PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 20 November 2017 at 18:06, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
> > I'll see if I can measure the cost of the current vbar switching to get
> > an idea of the potential performance available.
> >
>
> Yeah, makes sense. If the bulk of the performance hit is elsewhere,
> there's no point in focusing on this bit.
I had a go at implementing a variant on your suggestion where we avoid
swizzling the vbar on exception entry/exit but I couldn't reliably measure a
difference in performance. It appears that the ISB needed by the TTBR change
is dominant, so the vbar write is insignificant.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists