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:   Mon, 8 Aug 2022 13:03:24 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@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: <YvDtfKRyMGenRMU5@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>
 <Yu+Nwbn4CZUmyD14@gmail.com>
 <Yu+VV8xFTYRh0D0a@zn.tnic>
 <YvAaXet3sBg3mRDe@iweiny-desk3>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YvAaXet3sBg3mRDe@iweiny-desk3>
Precedence: bulk


* Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 07, 2022 at 12:35:03PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 07, 2022 at 12:02:41PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> > > > 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
> > 
> > Not early - more correct. We can say which CPU executed the exception
> > handler *exactly*. Not which CPU executed the exception handler *maybe*.
> > 
> > > us 2 instructions in the exception fast path
> > 
> > 2 insns? They don't matter at all. FWIW, they'll pull in the per-CPU
> > cacheline earlier which should be a net win later, for code which does
> > smp_processor_id().

I'd like to hear what Andy Lutomirski thinks about the notion that
"2 instructions don't matter at all" ...

Especially since it's now 4 instructions:

> I agree with Boris; however I feel that I have to mention that in patch 
> 3/5 you also have 1 instruction on each of entry and exit to push the 
> extra stack space.  So all told it would cost 4 instructions.

... 4 instructions in the exception path is a non-trivial impact.

> Again, I don't believe this is too much overhead but I don't want people 
> to say it was not discussed.

Is it necessary to do this, what are the alternatives, can this overhead be 
avoided?

Thanks,

	Ingo