[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190331151248.GB15073@zn.tnic>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 17:12:48 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/kvm: Convert some slow-path static_cpu_has()
callers to boot_cpu_has()
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 04:20:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> These are not slow path.
Those functions do a *lot* of stuff like a bunch of MSR reads which are
tens of cycles each at least.
I don't think a RIP-relative MOV and a BT:
movq boot_cpu_data+20(%rip), %rax # MEM[(const long unsigned int *)&boot_cpu_data + 20B], _45
btq $59, %rax #, _45
are at all noticeable.
On latest AMD and Intel uarch those are 2-4 cycles, according to
https://agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.ods
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists