[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yu0aYIbCAjFtEBVZ@zn.tnic>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2022 15:25:52 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Dave Jones <dsj@...com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86,mm: print likely CPU at segfault time
On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 08:53:46AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Having a small percentage of the segfaults show up on
> cores other than the broken one does not cause issues with
> detection or diagnosis.
I'm sorry but I'm not buying any of this: this should either be 100%
correct or it can stay on your kernels.
> We could, but then we would be reading the CPU number
> on every page fault, just in case it's a segfault.
>
> That does not seem like a worthwhile tradeoff, given
> how much of a hot path page faults are, and how rare
> segfaults are.
Oh wow, a whopping single instruction:
movl %gs:cpu_number(%rip), %eax # cpu_number, pfo_val__
What tradeoff?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists