[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903251401580.1656@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:05:40 +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:
> 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?
And even IF the sequences are faster than the single WRMSR, this does not
justify the mixed bag of SWAPGS/FSGSBASE usage at all.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists