[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86dc0d5c-88af-dddc-4618-1a0a5a545e5f@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 09:24:06 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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 31/03/19 17:12, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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.
The MSR reads and writes are not done in the common case. Also, you
cannot really expect boot_cpu_data to be in L1 in these functions since
they run after the guest---or if they do, each L1 line you fill in with
host data is one line you "steal" from the guest.
Paolo
> 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
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists