From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=Yw3T=OB=vger.kernel.org=linux-kernel-owner@kernel.org>
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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 25B4AC43441
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 22:29:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF3D420866
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 22:29:43 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CF3D420866
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S2392578AbeKWJLJ (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 23 Nov 2018 04:11:09 -0500
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:49123 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1730084AbeKWJLJ (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 23 Nov 2018 04:11:09 -0500
Received: from p4fea46ac.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([79.234.70.172] helo=nanos)
        by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256)
        (Exim 4.80)
        (envelope-from <tglx@linutronix.de>)
        id 1gPxTb-0005fh-2e; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 23:29:35 +0100
Date:   Thu, 22 Nov 2018 23:29:34 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@intel.com>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@intel.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman9394@gmail.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Dave Stewart <david.c.stewart@intel.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 17/24] x86/speculation: Move IBPB control out of
 switch_mm()
In-Reply-To: <20181122075206.GG41788@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811222328510.1665@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20181121201430.559770965@linutronix.de> <20181121201723.948990148@linutronix.de> <20181122075206.GG41788@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0
X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: -
X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required,  ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Now maybe reload the debug registers and handle I/O bitmaps
> >  	 */
> > -	if (unlikely(task_thread_info(next_p)->flags & _TIF_WORK_CTXSW_NEXT ||
> > -		     task_thread_info(prev_p)->flags & _TIF_WORK_CTXSW_PREV))
> > +	if (unlikely(next_tif & _TIF_WORK_CTXSW_NEXT ||
> > +		     prev_tif & _TIF_WORK_CTXSW_PREV))
> >  		__switch_to_xtra(prev_p, next_p, tss);
> 
> Hm, the repetition between process_32.c and process_64.c is getting 
> stronger - could some of this be unified into process.c? (in later 
> patches)

Yes, for the price of an out of line call.

Thanks,

	tglx