Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 5 Aug 2022 15:25:52 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Dave Jones <dsj@fb.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2]  x86,mm: print likely CPU at segfault time
Message-ID: <Yu0aYIbCAjFtEBVZ@zn.tnic>
References: <20220804155450.08c5b87e@imladris.surriel.com>
 <YuzsJfHi+qV6Z16E@zn.tnic>
 <2239a6e4f5e9d12ef7a55da6dba716df681201ff.camel@surriel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2239a6e4f5e9d12ef7a55da6dba716df681201ff.camel@surriel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 08:53:46AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Having a small percentage of the segfaults show up on
> cores other than the broken one does not cause issues with
> detection or diagnosis.

I'm sorry but I'm not buying any of this: this should either be 100%
correct or it can stay on your kernels.

> We could, but then we would be reading the CPU number
> on every page fault, just in case it's a segfault.
> 
> That does not seem like a worthwhile tradeoff, given
> how much of a hot path page faults are, and how rare
> segfaults are.

Oh wow, a whopping single instruction:

	movl %gs:cpu_number(%rip), %eax # cpu_number, pfo_val__

What tradeoff?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette