Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: selftests/x86/fsgsbase_64 test problem
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dan Rue <dan.rue@linaro.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@virtuozzo.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20180126153631.ha7yc33fj5uhitjo@xps>
 <CALCETrXVFC=6wPNpL0Dc7pkSv4JSaoEZZcu3Rtw0sg7KJsE5Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrUi7Ub2TbFy3Cvj+j4VXZeYULPY+mgL7OX7bz9L8GO9ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrWvkd68wPCxGwmzqgsLTr_59+=L9u8obwt+f+oUQwDY=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrW5=K5wJqLRZACmJJ+LF8Nb+Yf3OJ1tTNwqiOCxHu3w1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrWq04AngUHkSv-bqDYXDSVH8N0bhXS_Nh63SpMmndexSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrUcJ2dVkSXGhtRvQeYQZZhPca95VhjQB8j6dFN6hzceSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <46328204-e363-e517-f30c-c8c94ac1442c@zytor.com>
 <CALCETrW6SY8ktqSA-r108WkNf15js4eu0grDds=JVbNtBdSGqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <624b9e67-14ee-6882-e55e-f337ec2471d3@zytor.com>
 <F6FCC323-841E-4337-B1E7-8F2E502552D6@amacapital.net>
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Message-ID: <0b0a3cea-d951-d3be-16de-a0e9d50cb2ba@zytor.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:30:05 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F6FCC323-841E-4337-B1E7-8F2E502552D6@amacapital.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 01/29/18 10:26, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>> That will utterly suck on non-UMIP machines that have
>>> hypervisor-provided UMIP emulation.
>>
>> Is that a valid thing to optimize for, especially given that paranoid
>> entries aren't the most common anyway?
> 
> A bunch of people seem to care about NMI performance for perf.
>

That wasn't really the question...

> And the current patch set works without this trick.

But I believe the tricks it uses are fragile.

> FWIW, if we switch all entries to the entry text trampoline, we get direct percpu access for free.

That might be a better option.

	-hpa