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
References: <02bfc577-32a5-66be-64bf-d476b7d447d2@kernel.dk>
 <20181121063609.GA109082@gmail.com> <48e27a3a-2bb2-ff41-3512-8aeb3fd59e57@kernel.dk>
 <1c22125bb5d22c2dcd686d0d3b390f115894f746.camel@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=wgnjB+=o0771=J_YkQzabU5aadh6pN3x9Vk4HPs3MHL3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjweUiVewcnk39mUccEN-SjxHeTZdB3VOXZrvvW4Cs3dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiDLq5CVnTJhFNEEduqYP_VSsQPSNvi=w6a8Y9figuh7g@mail.gmail.com> <20181122103231.GA102790@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181122103231.GA102790@gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 22 Nov 2018 08:55:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjG=hvKnsRByogG_7Pwwi+7UQ1AK52m5bTp9dUHhAOzfw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: only use ERMS for user copies for larger sizes
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc:     pabeni@redhat.com, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, bp@alien8.de,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, dvlasenk@redhat.com,
        brgerst@gmail.com,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 2:32 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Random patch (with my "asm goto" hack included) attached, in case
> > people want to play with it.
>
> Doesn't even look all that hacky to me. Any hack in it that I didn't
> notice? :-)

The code to use asm goto sadly doesn't have any fallback at all for
the "no asm goto available".

I guess we're getting close to "we require asm goto support", but I
don't think we're there yet.

Also, while "unsafe_put_user()" has been converted to use asm goto
(and yes, it really does generate much nicer code), the same is not
true of "unsafe_get_user()". Because sadly, gcc does not support asm
goto with output values.

So, realistically, my patch is not _technically_ hacky, but it's
simply not viable as things stand, and it's more of a tech
demonstration than anything else.

               Linus