[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1801101520460.25337@nftneq.ynat.uz>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:22:35 -0800 (PST)
From: David Lang <david@...g.hm>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
x86@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de, rga@...zon.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/retpoline: Fill return stack buffer on vmexit
I somewhat hate to ask this, but for those of us following at home, what does
this add to the overhead?
I am remembering an estimate from mid last week that put retpoline at replacing
a 3 clock 'ret' with 30 clocks of eye-bleed code
Powered by blists - more mailing lists