[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0b0a3cea-d951-d3be-16de-a0e9d50cb2ba@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:30:05 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dan Rue <dan.rue@...aro.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: selftests/x86/fsgsbase_64 test problem
On 01/29/18 10:26, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>> That will utterly suck on non-UMIP machines that have
>>> hypervisor-provided UMIP emulation.
>>
>> Is that a valid thing to optimize for, especially given that paranoid
>> entries aren't the most common anyway?
>
> A bunch of people seem to care about NMI performance for perf.
>
That wasn't really the question...
> And the current patch set works without this trick.
But I believe the tricks it uses are fragile.
> FWIW, if we switch all entries to the entry text trampoline, we get direct percpu access for free.
That might be a better option.
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists