[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YJuGms6UnRVpP7U/@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 09:41:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>
Cc: Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>,
Petteri Aimonen <jpa@....mail.kapsi.fi>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Fan Yang <Fan_Yang@...u.edu.cn>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Benjamin Thiel <b.thiel@...teo.de>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: x86: use wrpkru directly in
kvm_load_{guest|host}_xsave_state
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 01:05:02PM -0400, Jon Kohler wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
> index 8d33ad80704f..5bc4df3a4c27 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
> @@ -583,7 +583,13 @@ static inline void switch_fpu_finish(struct fpu *new_fpu)
> if (pk)
> pkru_val = pk->pkru;
> }
> - __write_pkru(pkru_val);
> +
> + /*
> + * WRPKRU is relatively expensive compared to RDPKRU.
> + * Avoid WRPKRU when it would not change the value.
> + */
> + if (pkru_val != rdpkru())
> + wrpkru(pkru_val);
Just wondering; why aren't we having that in a per-cpu variable? The
usual per-cpu MSR shadow approach avoids issuing any 'special' ops
entirely.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists