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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7dbf6cad-f03d-640c-bc95-d82deaa30cb7@redhat.com>
References: <1517404231-22406-1-git-send-email-karahmed@amazon.de>
 <1517404231-22406-3-git-send-email-karahmed@amazon.de> <CALMp9eRKz+sKeah0V0bpiYJJUgTM5oisbtahkNGtW=seW2W5JQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7dbf6cad-f03d-640c-bc95-d82deaa30cb7@redhat.com>
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 09:39:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CALMp9eR85pUJXANX8Ve1pEDWE9vUBrYFC=+4o1Vuq+hRNi+Azw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] KVM: x86: Add IBPB support
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@amazon.de>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:

> In fact this MSR can even be passed down unconditionally, since it needs
> no save/restore and has no ill performance effect on the sibling
> hyperthread.

I'm a bit surprised to hear that IBPB has no ill performance impact on
the sibling hyperthread. On current CPUs, this has to flush the BTB,
doesn't it? And since the BTB is shared between hyperthreads, doesn't
the sibling lose all of its branch predictions?