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:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:12:35 -0700
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wguWBY_W8-M0vSCae538mAY2vQtkrdNbZX4T8rvAYxPxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190318153840.906404905@infradead.org> <20190318155139.963285969@infradead.org> <CAHk-=wgYUTJ33ANOF5=5AKafzgqCi4Xe9iRCdgUV4s05HrH_Pw@mail.gmail.com> <20190318173657.GV6058@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190318175135.GE6521@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAHk-=wguWBY_W8-M0vSCae538mAY2vQtkrdNbZX4T8rvAYxPxg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/25] x86: Make SMAP 64-bit only
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, valentin.schneider@arm.com,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
From:   hpa@zytor.com
Message-ID: <168D2D76-419B-46F1-B3D5-76CB1F1C252F@zytor.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On March 18, 2019 11:10:22 AM PDT, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:51 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>wrote:
>>
>> How about I do a patch that schedules EFLAGS for both 32bit and
>64bit,
>> mark this for backporting to infinity.
>>
>> And then at the end, after the objtool-ac bits land, I do a patch
>> removing the EFLAGS scheduling for x86_64.
>
>Sounds sane to me.
>
>And we can make it AC-conditional if it's actually shown to be visible
>from a performance standpoint.
>
>But iirc pushf/popf isn't really that expensive - in fact I think it's
>pretty cheap when system flags don't change. Which would be the common
>case unless you'd also make the popf do the irq restore part and
>simply make finish_lock_switch() re-enable irq's by doing an
>irqrestore?
>
>I think popf is like 20 cycles or something (and pushf is just single
>cycles). Probably not worth worrying about in the task switch context.
>
>                 Linus

Yes, the problem isn't scheduling per se but the risk of hiding problems.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.