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:   Sun, 7 Aug 2022 12:02:41 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, ira.weiny@intel.com,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] x86/entry: Store CPU info on exception entry
Message-ID: <Yu+Nwbn4CZUmyD14@gmail.com>
References: <20220805173009.3128098-1-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <20220805173009.3128098-6-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <5d62c1d0-7425-d5bb-ecb5-1dc3b4d7d245@intel.com>
 <Yu4t0jkpIY4grgxL@gmail.com>
 <Yu4wON0MRGH7h5Jv@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yu4wON0MRGH7h5Jv@zn.tnic>
Precedence: bulk


* Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 11:01:06AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > It's still 2 instructions more than what we had before, while the 
> > fault-time CPU number is only needed infrequently AFAICS.
> 
> With the amount of logical cores ever increasing and how CPU packages
> (nodes, L3 sharing, you name it) get more and more complex topology,
> I'd say the 2 insns to show the CPU number in every exception is a good
> thing to do.

We can show it - I'm arguing against extracting it too early, which costs 
us 2 instructions in the exception fast path - while in 99.999999999% of 
the cases we don't use that field at all ...

> Arguably, we probably should've even done it already...

Yeah, so I'm not against Rik's patch that prints the CPU number - that's 
indeed useful and I'd like to see it merged.

I'm arguing against extracting the CPU so early as to impact the exception 
fast path.

Thanks,

	Ingo