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:   Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:53:42 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@intel.com>
Cc:     Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] x86/gsseg: use the LKGS instruction if available for
 load_gs_index()
Message-ID: <Y0PPhpj2aD3mYFOZ@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20221006154041.13001-1-xin3.li@intel.com>
 <20221006154041.13001-7-xin3.li@intel.com>
 <CAMzpN2iccL5kNa2UaBXppiLnoNWrpwJd74+uBrB_63N0F5F5Xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <BN6PR1101MB2161E1191DF1BD0135DC3947A85E9@BN6PR1101MB2161.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAMzpN2i52orTgPqRARoCkuA=c2GEyWXLscrFRgDkb0LoFV01Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <BN6PR1101MB2161FFEB80E3D3AE06035384A8209@BN6PR1101MB2161.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR1101MB2161FFEB80E3D3AE06035384A8209@BN6PR1101MB2161.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 04:32:34AM +0000, Li, Xin3 wrote:
> > > > There are not that many call sites, so using something like this
> > > > (incorporating Peter Z's suggestion for the exception handler) would
> > > > be better from a code readability perspective vs. a tiny increase in code size.
> > >
> > > The existing approach patches the binary code thus we don't need to check it
> > at runtime.
> > 
> > static_cpu_has() uses alternatives to patch the branch, so there is no runtime
> > check after early boot.
> > 
> 
> Sorry, didn't know it, thanks for point it out.
> 
> If we prefer static_cpu_has, are you asking to replace all alternative macros with it?

No; the only reason to do it here would be to unconfuse that exception
thing. But even there I'm not convinced.

Yes, Brian's code is much easier to read, but code-gen is quite terrible
(also, my binutils can't seem to decode this -- GNU objdump (GNU
Binutils for Debian) 2.38.90.20220713)