From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2793AC433E0 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 19:42:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034192088E for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 19:42:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1590694921; bh=vEeHCYhh4W9hknEzn2D84XrYsPb35CXWQHbBn6eUN/8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=C2mfQyKTiuXOwmJDfvV3b+lJ4o2UE1nZe7Dw8BklkFePUfRFWE/40gu4ffsarFv33 ikZIQHE2L1HW757yzUqFIFpqU66Coy0/qPLkViWjA9bj3cnvBUxiBmLZKvWNcsZE1/ 3BKkK7zN/XJrlY2NGzI/7WNf4/CPym6BEJ90SaVE= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2406703AbgE1TmA (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 15:42:00 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:60412 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2406540AbgE1Tl6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 15:41:58 -0400 Received: from localhost (c-73-47-72-35.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [73.47.72.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 446202078C; Thu, 28 May 2020 19:41:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1590694918; bh=vEeHCYhh4W9hknEzn2D84XrYsPb35CXWQHbBn6eUN/8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=yD2JQCHUWxhNY9JA0dk5XPD//RJLMDI25b6K37Eg7kaHDXQnhe6qEAucfDAUOjw2+ Nn4y/ABJk32VxAAvyjbsiPh6XnGc6eEdn4t8hAXfwspOkC2bcp7W+htxtPX7iKjsZM EeAA5KuR1UbsMwjnZ/SrAu+W+fJ5KLEQQpS9sdGQ= Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 15:41:57 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: Don Porter , Thomas Gleixner , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, luto@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, ravi.v.shankar@intel.com, chang.seok.bae@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 00/18] Enable FSGSBASE instructions Message-ID: <20200528194157.GB1407771@sasha-vm> References: <20200518153407.GA499505@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <371e6a92cad25cbe7a8489785efa7d3457ecef3b.camel@linux.intel.com> <87v9ksvoaq.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200519164853.GA19706@linux.intel.com> <7eb45e02-03bf-0af0-c915-794bf49d66d7@cs.unc.edu> <87h7w7qy18.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <87d06opd3a.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200528191910.GC2147934@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200528191910.GC2147934@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:19:10PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 01:40:16PM -0400, Don Porter wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> >> On 5/28/20 6:29 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > > Until recently, we were doing proof-of-concept research, not product >> > > development, and there are limited hours in the day. I also hasten to >> > > say that the product of research is an article, the software artifact >> > > serves as documentation of the experiment. In contrast, the product of >> > > software development is software. It takes significant time and effort >> > > to convert one to the other. Upstreaming code is of little scientific >> > > interest. But things have changed for our project; we had no users in >> > > 2015 and we are now un-cutting corners that are appropriate for research >> > > but inappropriate for production. For a research artifact with an >> > > audience that knew the risks, we shipped a module because it was easier >> > > to maintain and install than a kernel patch. >> > >> > I understand that and with a big fat warning and documentation from >> > start I wouldn't have complained so vehemently. >> >> This is a fair point. We will fix this ASAP, and I will be more careful >> about this going forward. > >Are you going to experiment with this patch set and Graphene? Just >sanity checking so that I don't unnecessarily do duplicate work. > >I ignored most of the discussion since I came here only with the >motivation of testing Graphene together with this patch set. I'm >assuming that motivation is always good no matter which angle you come >from. Thus, I might have missed the part I'm asking. This series was heavily tested with Graphene-like workloads. -- Thanks, Sasha