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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230602010550.785722-1-seanjc@google.com> <C8324338-FC07-454E-9A5A-1785141FEAB3@nutanix.com>
 <CALMp9eTtkBL3Fb7Dq60go6CL+zGODNn0TTavr436Q-+=mpVFMA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALMp9eTtkBL3Fb7Dq60go6CL+zGODNn0TTavr436Q-+=mpVFMA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Jun 2023 13:58:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL715WKm4t=y_UZZSZkd2=QPwXL8n-KnWzBS4A-ZJLQaWb0RKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Use cpu_feature_enabled() for PKU instead of #ifdef
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc:     Jon Kohler <jon@nutanix.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

>
> As we move towards enabling PKRU on the host, due to some customer
> requests, I have to wonder if PKRU-disabled is the norm.
>
> In other words, is this a likely() or unlikely() optimization?

I think it should be likely() as PKU was introduced very early in the
Skylake-SP server cores many years ago. Today I think all recent
client CPUs should have PKU on default if I am not mistaken. So yeah,
adding a likely() probably should help prevent the compiler from
evicting this code chunk to the end of function.

Thanks.
-Mingwei