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, 1 Aug 2019 23:59:45 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
cc:     "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/amd: Change NMI latency mitigation to use a
 timestamp
In-Reply-To: <20190801214813.GB2332@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908012352390.1789@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <833ee307989ac6bfb45efe823c5eca4b2b80c7cf.1564685848.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com> <20190801211613.GB3578@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <b4597324-6eb8-31fa-e911-63f3b704c974@amd.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908012331550.1789@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20190801214813.GB2332@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 11:34:23PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Avoid the whole NMI mess, make the PMC interrupt a proper vector in the
> > highest prio bucket and instead of using CLI/STI use CR8. That would have
> > the additional advantage that we could prevent perf "NMI" then occsionally :)
> 
> Exactly, and not only the PMC, we can basically start giving out actual
> vectors on register_nmi_handler() and do away with all that shared line
> crap.
> 
> And then the actual NMI line will be mostly empty again, and it can read
> its stupid slow reason port again.
> 
> One complication though; IRET et al only do EFLAGS, not CR8, so that's
> going to be massive fun :-(
> 
> Did I say I hates the x86 interrupt scheme?

You're not alone.

That stuff definitely violates article 3 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.