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: <56ea846e-bce8-2508-e485-1dada8c39643@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 May 2023 07:12:34 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/vdso: Use non-serializing instruction rdtsc
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Rong Tao <rtoax@foxmail.com>, tglx@linutronix.de
Cc:     Rong Tao <rongtao@cestc.cn>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <tencent_4DC4468312A1CB2CA34B0215FAD797D11F07@qq.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <tencent_4DC4468312A1CB2CA34B0215FAD797D11F07@qq.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/15/23 23:52, Rong Tao wrote:
> Replacing rdtscp or 'lfence;rdtsc' with the non-serializable instruction
> rdtsc can achieve a 40% performance improvement with only a small loss of
> precision.

I think the minimum that can be done in a changelog like this is to
figure out _why_ a RDTSCP was in use.  There are a ton of things that
can make the kernel go faster, but not all of them are a good idea.

I assume that the folks that wrote this had good reason for not using
plain RSTSC.  What were those reasons?