Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 15:41:57 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Don Porter <porter@cs.unc.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bp@alien8.de, luto@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
        dave.hansen@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
        ravi.v.shankar@intel.com, chang.seok.bae@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 00/18] Enable FSGSBASE instructions
Message-ID: <20200528194157.GB1407771@sasha-vm>
References: <20200518153407.GA499505@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <371e6a92cad25cbe7a8489785efa7d3457ecef3b.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <87v9ksvoaq.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20200519164853.GA19706@linux.intel.com>
 <7eb45e02-03bf-0af0-c915-794bf49d66d7@cs.unc.edu>
 <87h7w7qy18.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <c5fffcd1-c262-7046-a047-67de2bbccd78@cs.unc.edu>
 <87d06opd3a.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <e9a0a521-104b-5c3a-a689-78f878e73d31@cs.unc.edu>
 <20200528191910.GC2147934@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200528191910.GC2147934@linux.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:19:10PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 01:40:16PM -0400, Don Porter wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> On 5/28/20 6:29 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > > Until recently, we were doing proof-of-concept research, not product
>> > > development, and there are limited hours in the day.  I also hasten to
>> > > say that the product of research is an article, the software artifact
>> > > serves as documentation of the experiment.  In contrast, the product of
>> > > software development is software.  It takes significant time and effort
>> > > to convert one to the other.  Upstreaming code is of little scientific
>> > > interest.  But things have changed for our project; we had no users in
>> > > 2015 and we are now un-cutting corners that are appropriate for research
>> > > but inappropriate for production.  For a research artifact with an
>> > > audience that knew the risks, we shipped a module because it was easier
>> > > to maintain and install than a kernel patch.
>> >
>> > I understand that and with a big fat warning and documentation from
>> > start I wouldn't have complained so vehemently.
>>
>> This is a fair point.  We will fix this ASAP, and I will be more careful
>> about this going forward.
>
>Are you going to experiment with this patch set and Graphene? Just
>sanity checking so that I don't unnecessarily do duplicate work.
>
>I ignored most of the discussion since I came here only with the
>motivation of testing Graphene together with this patch set. I'm
>assuming that motivation is always good no matter which angle you come
>from. Thus, I might have missed the part I'm asking.

This series was heavily tested with Graphene-like workloads.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha