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, 7 Nov 2019 08:44:45 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 5/9] x86/ioport: Reduce ioperm impact for sane usage
 further
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjXcS--G3Wd8ZGEOdCNRAWPaUneyN1ryShQL-_yi1kvOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1911070843490.1869@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20191106193459.581614484@linutronix.de> <20191106202806.241007755@linutronix.de> <CAHk-=wjXcS--G3Wd8ZGEOdCNRAWPaUneyN1ryShQL-_yi1kvOA@mail.gmail.com>
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 Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I may read this patch wrong, but from what I can tell, if we really
> have just one process with an io bitmap, we're doing unnecessary
> copies.
> 
> If we really have just one process that has an iobitmap, I think we
> could just keep the bitmap of that process entirely unchanged. Then,
> when we switch away from it, we set the io_bitmap_base to an invalid
> base outside the TSS segment, and when we switch back, we set it back
> to the valid one. No actual bitmap copies at all.
> 
> So I think that rather than the "begin/end offset" games, we should
> perhaps have a "what was the last process that used the IO bitmap for
> this TSS" pointer (and, I think, some sequence counter, so that when
> the process updates its bitmap, it invalidates that case)?
> 
>  Of course, you can do *nboth*, but if we really think that the common
> case is "one special process", then I think the begin/end offset is
> useless, but a "last bitmap process" would be very useful.
> 
> Am I missing something?

No. You are right. I'll have a look at that.

Thanks,

	tglx