[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5b1ad0e0-bbe7-9869-ee19-1b62023203ed@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 19:45:12 +0530
From: Gaurav Kohli <gkohli@...eaurora.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, maz@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
neeraju@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Skip apply SSBS call for non SSBS system
On 8/12/2020 7:00 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 07:44:42PM +0530, Gaurav Kohli wrote:
>> In a system where no cpu's implement SSBS, for
>> them no need to set pstate. This might help to save
>> few cpu cycles during context switch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gaurav Kohli <gkohli@...eaurora.org>
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
>> index 6089638..79f80f1 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
>> @@ -477,6 +477,13 @@ static void ssbs_thread_switch(struct task_struct *next)
>> struct pt_regs *regs = task_pt_regs(next);
>>
>> /*
>> + * For Targets which don't have SSBS support, they
>> + * can return from here.
>> + */
>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_SSBD))
>> + return;
>
> Does this actually make a measurable difference?
>
> Will
>
Hi Will,
While doing code review between older kernel and latest kernel for
context switch case, there i have found this and thought it is good to
have for non-ssbs system to return early(as this might improve).
Please let me know if you want to run some tests.
Regards
Gaurav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists