lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/msr: Carry on after a non-"safe" MSR access fails without !panic_on_oops

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Linus, what's your preference?
>
> So quite frankly, is there any reason we don't just implement
> native_read_msr() as just
>
> unsigned long long native_read_msr(unsigned int msr)
> {
> int err;
> unsigned long long val;
>
> val = native_read_msr_safe(msr, &err);
> WARN_ON_ONCE(err);
> return val;
> }
>
> Note: no inline, no nothing. Just put it in arch/x86/lib/msr.c, and be
> done with it. I don't see the downside.

Absolutely!

> How many msr reads are <i>so</i> critical that the function call overhead would
> matter? Get rid of the inline version of the _safe() thing too, and put that
> thing there too.

Only a very low number of them is performance critical (because even
hw-accelerated MSR accesses are generally slow so we try to avoid MSR accesses in
fast paths as much as possible, via shadowing, etc.) - and in the few cases where
we have to access an MSR in a fast path we can do those separately.

I'm only worried about the 'default' APIs, i.e. rdmsr() that is used throughout
arch/x86/ over a hundred times, not about performance critical code paths that get
enough testing and enough attention in general.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-22 09:41    [W:0.091 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site