From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/msr: Carry on after a non-"safe"
 MSR access fails without !panic_on_oops
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:49:10 -0700
Message-ID: <56003506.1050100__36212.6837172129$1442855304$gmane$org@linux.intel.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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzKCi6pf0RP8HjDQYDsms6reB5AihuCAHEkVJtoOHk_Yw@mail.gmail.com>
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: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 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>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 9/21/2015 9:36 AM, 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?

if anything qualifies it'd be switch_to() and friends.

note that I'm not entirely happy about the notion of "safe" MSRs.
They're safe as in "won't fault".
Reading random MSRs isn't a generic safe operation though, but the name sort of gives people
the impression that it is. Even with _safe variants, you still need to KNOW the MSR exists (by means
of CPUID or similar) unfortunately.