[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903251345180.1656@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 13:46:32 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Ravi Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v6 04/12] x86/fsgsbase/64: Enable FSGSBASE
instructions in the helper functions
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The whole point of FSGSBASE support is performance, right?
>
> So can please someone explain why having the following in the context
> switch path when it can be completely avoided is enhancing performance:
>
> - 4 x SWAPGS
> - 1 x RDMSR
> - 1 x WRMSR
Corrrecting myself. That should be:
RDGSBASE
WRGSBASE
obviously. Still the point remains.
> - 2 x local_irq_save()
> - 2 x local_irq_restore()
>
> Of course the local_irq_save/restore() pairs are utterly pointless because
> switch_to() runs with interrupts disabled already.
>
> SWAPGS instead needs:
>
> 1 x WRMSR
>
> and nothing else.
>
> So trading the single WRMSR against the above in the context switch path is
> gaining performance, right?
>
> The only thing which gains performance is user space switching GS. And this
> user space performance gain is achieved by:
>
> - Inconsistent and fragile code with a guarantee for subtle and hard to
> diagnose bugs
>
> - Pointless overhead in the context switch code
>
> Sorry, not going to happen ever.
>
> Get your act together and make this consistent. Either SWAPGS or FSGSBASE,
> but not a mix of it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists