From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/msr: Carry on after a non-"safe"
 MSR access fails without !panic_on_oops
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:01:22 +0200
Message-ID: <20150930140122.GB3285__30666.1544055261$1443621765$gmane$org@gmail.com>
References: <cover.1442793572.git.luto@kernel.org>
	<130a3b7ef4788baae3a6fe71293ab17442bc9a0a.1442793572.git.luto@kernel.org>
	<CA+55aFy4Chd-PJvxGne=TztPsvFqUG07Ht8mtc4+0oGNZNDOyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALCETrXqsKcqzfqMO2ctOJJ4X8Kb6vvoUpVDir9F2-a3XwK23w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150921084642.GA30984@gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFzKCi6pf0RP8HjDQYDsms6reB5AihuCAHEkVJtoOHk_Yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150930131002.GK2881@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150930131002.GK2881@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, xen-devel <Xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:36:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> There are a few in the perf code, and esp. on cores without a stack engine the 
> call overhead is noticeable. Also note that the perf MSRs are generally 
> optimized MSRs and less slow (we cannot say fast, they're still MSRs) than 
> regular MSRs.

These could still be open coded in an inlined fashion, like the scheduler usage.

Thanks,

	Ingo