Message-Id: <200302140407.h1E477oP041875@tenor.codegen.com>
To: Peter Tattam <peter@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au>
cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, discuss@x86-64.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [Bug 350] New: i386 context switch very slow compared to 2.4 due to wrmsr (performance) 
Organization: CodeGen, Inc., San Francisco, CA
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:01:30 +1100.
             <Pine.BSF.3.96.1030214125805.16984A-100000@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au> 
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:07:07 -0800
From: "Thomas J. Merritt" <tjm@codegen.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2537
Lines: 52

|<><><><><> Original message from Peter Tattam  <><><><><>
|On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Eric Northup wrote:
|
|> On Thursday 13 February 2003 07:14 pm, Peter Tattam wrote:
|> > On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Andi Kleen wrote:
|> > > [Hmm, this is becomming a FAQ]
|> > >
|> > > > Switching in and out of long mode is evil enough that I don't think it
|> > > > is worth it.  And encouraging people to write good JIT compiling
|> > >
|> > > Forget it. It is completely undefined in the architecture what happens
|> > > then. You'll lose interrupts and everything. Nothing for an operating
|> > > system intended to be stable.
|> > >
|> > > I have no plans at all to even think about it for Linux/x86-64.
|> [snip]
|> >
|> > The only other unknown quantity is the time it takes for the CPU to
|> > enable/disable long mode, but with modern CPU speeds, the interrupt latency
|> > may only be mildy affect by such a process, unless the CPU is broken in
|> > some way. I see no discussion in the AMD manuals regarding the cost of the
|> > mode switch, only what AMD engineers have hinted at.
|> 
|> I think the real issue is that AMD neither recommends nor supports this 
|> strategy.  ( http://www.x86-64.org/lists/discuss/msg02964.html ... there were
| 
|> better posts but I couldn't find them)  People with real hardware can't talk 
|> about it right now, but it seems to me this is just begging to get hit by 
|> errata -- how much effore do you think team Hammer spent testing a subtle 
|> mode transition which is marked "Don't do that!" ?
|> 
|
|well, I guess AMD need to come out & explicitly state this somewhere other than
|on a mailing list.   I wouldn't be only one tempted to see if it can be done,
|and if it becomes "necessary" for some OSes, AMD will get locked into a
|backward compatibility minefield.  Anyone know what Windows 64 does about this
|issue?  If Microsoft considers that it is sufficient to warp the CPU for v86
|emulation, it may just be a done deal.

The only way to get from long-mode back to legacy-mode is to reset the
processor.  It can be done in software but you will likely lose interrupts.
Attempting to switch out of long-mode by modifying EFER will just get you a #GP
fault.  You might want to read Volume 2 section 14.6.2.

TJ Merritt
tjm@codegen.com
1-925-462-4300 x115
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/