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;
Message-ID: <01768c70-a012-0d08-cfa5-a7a87ff0a19c@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Aug 2022 09:16:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] x86/entry: Store CPU info on exception entry
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.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>
 <YvDtfKRyMGenRMU5@gmail.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <YvDtfKRyMGenRMU5@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 8/8/22 04:03, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> 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?

One thing Andy mentioned is that we _could_ get it down to two instructions:

	rdgsbase $reg
	push $reg

This could be hidden in:

	PUSH_PTREGS_AUXILIARY

where, today, it would only net add a single instruction.  But, if we
ever add more stuff to PUSH_PTREGS_AUXILIARY, it would move back to
needing two instructions since we'd need both the:

	subq $PTREGS_AUX_SIZE, %rsp

and something to write gsbase to the stack.

That doesn't get us the smp_processor_id() directly, but we can derive
it later on from the gsbase value.

The downside is that we're doing it in assembly.  We'd also have
something additional which is a bit uglier and that reads memory on
!X86_FEATURE_FSGSBASE, probably:
	
	movq    PER_CPU_VAR(cpu_number), %reg
	push %reg

Which would require some different code to decode what was there:

int read_exception_cpu_number(ext_pt_regs *e)
{
	if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_FSGSBASE))
		return gsbase_to_cpu_number(e->ext_cpu_nr);
	else
		return e->ext_cpu_nr;
}

I'm thinking that the whole racy smp_processor_id() thing wasn't so bad
in the first place.