[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200206004944.GA11455@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 16:49:44 -0800
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mark D Rustad <mrustad@...il.com>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] x86/split_lock: Avoid runtime reads of the TEST_CTRL MSR
In a context switch from a task that is detecting split locks
to one that is not (or vice versa) we need to update the TEST_CTRL
MSR. Currently this is done with the common sequence:
read the MSR
flip the bit
write the MSR
in order to avoid changing the value of any reserved bits in the MSR.
Cache the value of the TEST_CTRL MSR when we read it during initialization
so we can avoid an expensive RDMSR instruction during context switch.
Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
index 5d92e381fd91..78de69c5887a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
@@ -1054,6 +1054,14 @@ static void __init split_lock_setup(void)
}
}
+/*
+ * Soft copy of MSR_TEST_CTRL initialized when we first read the
+ * MSR. Used at runtime to avoid using rdmsr again just to collect
+ * the reserved bits in the MSR. We assume reserved bits are the
+ * same on all CPUs.
+ */
+static u64 test_ctrl_val;
+
/*
* Locking is not required at the moment because only bit 29 of this
* MSR is implemented and locking would not prevent that the operation
@@ -1063,19 +1071,29 @@ static void __init split_lock_setup(void)
* exist, there may be glitches in virtualization that leave a guest
* with an incorrect view of real h/w capabilities.
*/
-static bool __sld_msr_set(bool on)
+static bool __sld_msr_init(void)
{
- u64 test_ctrl_val;
+ u64 val;
- if (rdmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, &test_ctrl_val))
+ if (rdmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, &val))
return false;
+ test_ctrl_val = val;
+
+ val |= MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT;
+
+ return !wrmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, val);
+}
+
+static void __sld_msr_set(bool on)
+{
+ u64 val = test_ctrl_val;
if (on)
- test_ctrl_val |= MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT;
+ val |= MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT;
else
- test_ctrl_val &= ~MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT;
+ val &= ~MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT;
- return !wrmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, test_ctrl_val);
+ wrmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, val);
}
static void split_lock_init(void)
@@ -1083,7 +1101,7 @@ static void split_lock_init(void)
if (sld_state == sld_off)
return;
- if (__sld_msr_set(true))
+ if (__sld_msr_init())
return;
/*
--
2.21.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists