[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200727083619.GF119549@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:36:19 +0200
From: peterz@...radead.org
To: hpa@...or.com
Cc: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Cathy Zhang <cathy.zhang@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Kyung Min Park <kyung.min.park@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86/cpu: Use SERIALIZE in sync_core() when available
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 10:55:15PM -0700, hpa@...or.com wrote:
> For a really overenginered solution, but which might perform
> unnecessary poorly on existing hardware:
>
> asm volatile("1: .byte 0xf, 0x1, 0xe8; 2:"
> _ASM_EXTABLE(1b,2b));
Ha! cute, you take an #UD ?
We could optimize the #UD exception handler for this I suppose, but that
makes it an even worse hack. The simple alternative() seems like a much
simpler approach.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists