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;
Sender: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 6 Aug 2022 10:59:03 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86,mm: print likely CPU at segfault time
Message-ID: <Yu4tV9FmEQmbB4AU@gmail.com>
References: <20220805101644.2e674553@imladris.surriel.com>
 <Yu0o3J2T5QwKtoan@zn.tnic>
 <20220805104007.115359b5@imladris.surriel.com>
 <Yu4qja8L2ulHaqVt@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yu4qja8L2ulHaqVt@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

> >  	instrumentation_begin();
> > -	handle_page_fault(regs, error_code, address);
> > +	handle_page_fault(regs, error_code, address, cpu);
> 
> Not convinced that this is a good change: this will bloat all the 
> affected code by a couple of dozen instructions - for no good reason in 
> the context of this patch.
> 
> Boris, why should we do this? Extracting a parameter at higher levels and 
> passing it down to lower levels is almost always a bad idea from a code 
> generation POV, unless the majority of lower levels needs this 
> information anyway (which isn't the case here).

Oh, I just got to this series in my mbox:

  [RFC PATCH 0/5] Print CPU at segfault time
  ...
  [RFC PATCH 5/5] x86/entry: Store CPU info on exception entry

With that basis, printing the segfault CPU becomes a 'free' feature.

At the cost of putting ~2 new instructions into the hotpath of every 
exception though. :-/

Thanks,

	Ingo