[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bbde7529-eb64-5454-0984-bfdabac37b64@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:16:15 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Xin Li <xin3.li@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, peterz@...radead.org,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
ravi.v.shankar@...el.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
shan.kang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 23/33] x86/fred: let ret_from_fork() jmp to
fred_exit_user when FRED is enabled
On 4/4/23 03:27, Xin Li wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
> @@ -299,7 +299,12 @@ SYM_CODE_START_NOALIGN(ret_from_fork)
> UNWIND_HINT_REGS
> movq %rsp, %rdi
> call syscall_exit_to_user_mode /* returns with IRQs disabled */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_FRED
> + ALTERNATIVE "jmp swapgs_restore_regs_and_return_to_usermode", \
> + "jmp fred_exit_user", X86_FEATURE_FRED
> +#else
> jmp swapgs_restore_regs_and_return_to_usermode
> +#endif
Does the #ifdef really buy us anything here?
I guess it might save a *TINY* amount of time at alternative processing
time. But that doesn't really seem worth it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists