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;
Date:   Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:59:55 -0600
From:   Dan Rue <dan.rue@linaro.org>
To:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, 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>
Subject: Re: selftests/x86/fsgsbase_64 test problem
Message-ID: <20180227225955.s2vs4g7oc7tdi72i@xps>
References: <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>
 <0b0a3cea-d951-d3be-16de-a0e9d50cb2ba@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0b0a3cea-d951-d3be-16de-a0e9d50cb2ba@zytor.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:30:05AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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.

Has there been any conclusion to this thread? I can still reproduce the
issue on mainline and next.

Thanks,
Dan