lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] x86/speculation: switch_to_cond_stibp on is the likely case
    On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 10:38:00AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
    > > On 12/06/2018 03:41 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 02:49:28PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
    > > >> Since conditional STIBP is the default, it should be treated as
    > > >> the likely case. Changes the use of static_branch_unlikely() to
    > > >> static_branch_likely() for switch_to_cond_stibp.
    > > > So now you're making kernels on 'fixed' or unaffected hardware slower.
    > >
    > > Good point.
    > >
    > > The reason I sent out this patch is because of the inconsistency in the
    > > use of likely/unlikely hints.
    > >
    > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c:156:        if
    > > (static_branch_unlikely(&switch_to_cond_stibp))
    > > arch/x86/kernel/process.c:440:       
    > > static_branch_unlikely(&switch_to_cond_stibp)) {
    > > arch/x86/kernel/process.h:26:        if
    > > (!static_branch_likely(&switch_to_cond_stibp)) {
    > >
    > > So if we are aiming to optimize for "fixed" or unaffected hardware,
    > > maybe we should modify the likely hint to unlikely then.
    >
    > Right, I think that makes sense, Thomas?

    Yeah, I probably got that wrong in some places. Let me look.

    Thanks,

    Thomas
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-12-07 10:33    [W:4.369 / U:0.228 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site