[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWYdug6cY_ZjGPV19baFWb_VZxMHGmfxnoJfnXP7z=1Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:44:56 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"Liguori, Anthony" <aliguori@...zon.com>,
Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@...k.tugraz.at>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, Waim@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/35] x86/entry/32: Load task stack from x86_tss.sp1 in
SYSENTER handler
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 05:02:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Seems like a hack. Why can't that be stored in a per cpu variable?
>>
>> It *is* a percpu variable - the whole x86_tss structure is percpu.
>>
>> I guess it could be a different (separate) percpu variable, but might
>> as well use the space we already have allocated.
>
> Would be better/cleaner to use a separate variable instead of reusing
> x86 structures like this. Who knows what subtle side effects that
> may have eventually.
This variable is extremely hot, and it’s used under the same
circumstances as sp0, so sharing a cache line makes sense. And x86_64
works this way.
>
> It will be also easier to understand in the code.
I suppose it could go right before the TSS, but then we have potential
alignment issues. We could also muck with unions to give the field an
alternative, clearer name, I suppose. But this patch should go in
regardless and any cleanups should be done on x86_32 and x86_64
simultaneously, I think.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists