Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/xpti: avoid copying L4 page table contents when possible

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 19.02.18 at 18:19, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 19/02/18 17:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 15.02.18 at 13:52, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/entry.S
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/entry.S
>>> @@ -46,10 +46,13 @@ restore_all_guest:
>>>  .Lrag_cr3_start:
>>>          mov   VCPU_cr3(%rbx), %r9
>>>          GET_STACK_END(dx)
>>> -        mov   STACK_CPUINFO_FIELD(pv_cr3)(%rdx), %rdi
>>> +        mov   STACK_CPUINFO_FIELD(pv_cr3)(%rdx), %rax
>>> +        cmpb  $0, STACK_CPUINFO_FIELD(copy_l4)(%rdx)
>>> +        je    .Lrag_copyend
>>> +        movb  $0, STACK_CPUINFO_FIELD(copy_l4)(%rdx)
>> 
>> Use %bl instead of $0 in both cases (with a comment)?
> 
> Do you really think we should add such a micro optimization relying
> on the vcpu pointer being aligned to page boundary? And are you sure
> adding the register dependency isn't hurting more than we will gain
> from saving an instruction byte?

Well, both of what you say are the precise reasons why I've
asked a question rather than asking for the change to be done
unconditionally. I'm not really worried about the register
dependency - %rbx is loaded sufficiently much earlier. And
the struct-vcpu-is-aligned aspect is why I did suggest adding
a comment; I assume you realize we can't easily break that
alignment, hence I see no significant risk here. But I'm not
going to insist, and I'm open for further counter arguments.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel