[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC PATCH v2 21/34] x86/msr: Utilize the alternatives mechanism to write MSR
- To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Xin Li <xin@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-perf-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-hyperv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-edac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-hwmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- From: Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 08:51:58 +0200
- Autocrypt: addr=jgross@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsBNBFOMcBYBCACgGjqjoGvbEouQZw/ToiBg9W98AlM2QHV+iNHsEs7kxWhKMjrioyspZKOB ycWxw3ie3j9uvg9EOB3aN4xiTv4qbnGiTr3oJhkB1gsb6ToJQZ8uxGq2kaV2KL9650I1SJve dYm8Of8Zd621lSmoKOwlNClALZNew72NjJLEzTalU1OdT7/i1TXkH09XSSI8mEQ/ouNcMvIJ NwQpd369y9bfIhWUiVXEK7MlRgUG6MvIj6Y3Am/BBLUVbDa4+gmzDC9ezlZkTZG2t14zWPvx XP3FAp2pkW0xqG7/377qptDmrk42GlSKN4z76ELnLxussxc7I2hx18NUcbP8+uty4bMxABEB AAHNH0p1ZXJnZW4gR3Jvc3MgPGpncm9zc0BzdXNlLmNvbT7CwHkEEwECACMFAlOMcK8CGwMH CwkIBwMCAQYVCAIJCgsEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRCw3p3WKL8TL8eZB/9G0juS/kDY9LhEXseh mE9U+iA1VsLhgDqVbsOtZ/S14LRFHczNd/Lqkn7souCSoyWsBs3/wO+OjPvxf7m+Ef+sMtr0 G5lCWEWa9wa0IXx5HRPW/ScL+e4AVUbL7rurYMfwCzco+7TfjhMEOkC+va5gzi1KrErgNRHH kg3PhlnRY0Udyqx++UYkAsN4TQuEhNN32MvN0Np3WlBJOgKcuXpIElmMM5f1BBzJSKBkW0Jc Wy3h2Wy912vHKpPV/Xv7ZwVJ27v7KcuZcErtptDevAljxJtE7aJG6WiBzm+v9EswyWxwMCIO RoVBYuiocc51872tRGywc03xaQydB+9R7BHPzsBNBFOMcBYBCADLMfoA44MwGOB9YT1V4KCy vAfd7E0BTfaAurbG+Olacciz3yd09QOmejFZC6AnoykydyvTFLAWYcSCdISMr88COmmCbJzn sHAogjexXiif6ANUUlHpjxlHCCcELmZUzomNDnEOTxZFeWMTFF9Rf2k2F0Tl4E5kmsNGgtSa aMO0rNZoOEiD/7UfPP3dfh8JCQ1VtUUsQtT1sxos8Eb/HmriJhnaTZ7Hp3jtgTVkV0ybpgFg w6WMaRkrBh17mV0z2ajjmabB7SJxcouSkR0hcpNl4oM74d2/VqoW4BxxxOD1FcNCObCELfIS auZx+XT6s+CE7Qi/c44ibBMR7hyjdzWbABEBAAHCwF8EGAECAAkFAlOMcBYCGwwACgkQsN6d 1ii/Ey9D+Af/WFr3q+bg/8v5tCknCtn92d5lyYTBNt7xgWzDZX8G6/pngzKyWfedArllp0Pn fgIXtMNV+3t8Li1Tg843EXkP7+2+CQ98MB8XvvPLYAfW8nNDV85TyVgWlldNcgdv7nn1Sq8g HwB2BHdIAkYce3hEoDQXt/mKlgEGsLpzJcnLKimtPXQQy9TxUaLBe9PInPd+Ohix0XOlY+Uk QFEx50Ki3rSDl2Zt2tnkNYKUCvTJq7jvOlaPd6d/W0tZqpyy7KVay+K4aMobDsodB3dvEAs6 ScCnh03dDAFgIq5nsB11j3KPKdVoPlfucX2c7kGNH+LUMbzqV6beIENfNexkOfxHfw==
- Cc: tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, bp@xxxxxxxxx, dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, acme@xxxxxxxxxx, andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx, mark.rutland@xxxxxxx, alexander.shishkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx, irogers@xxxxxxxxxx, adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx, kan.liang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx, ajay.kaher@xxxxxxxxxxxx, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx, tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx, pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx, vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx, seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx, luto@xxxxxxxxxx, boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx, kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, decui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 06:52:27 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 25.04.25 03:15, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 4/24/25 01:14, Jürgen Groß wrote:
Actually, that is how we get this patch with the existing alternatives
infrastructure. And we took a step further to also remove the pv_ops
MSR APIs...
And this is what I'm questioning. IMHO this approach is adding more
code by removing the pv_ops MSR_APIs just because "pv_ops is bad". And
I believe most refusal of pv_ops is based on no longer valid reasoning.
pvops are a headache because it is effectively a secondary alternatives
infrastructure that is incompatible with the alternatives one...
Hu? How can that be, as pv_ops is using only alternatives infrastructure
for doing the patching?
I'd say today pv_ops is a convenience wrapper around alternatives.
It looks to me that you want to add a new facility to the alternatives
infrastructure first?
Why would we need a new facility in the alternatives infrastructure?
I'm not sure what Xin means with "facility", but a key motivation for this is
to:
a. Avoid using the pvops for MSRs when on the only remaining user thereof (Xen)
is only using it for a very small subset of MSRs and for the rest it is just
overhead, even for Xen;
b. Being able to do wrmsrns immediate/wrmsrns/wrmsr and rdmsr immediate/rdmsr
alternatives.
Of these, (b) is by far the biggest motivation. The architectural direction for
supervisor states is to avoid ad hoc and XSAVES ISA and instead use MSRs. The
immediate forms are expected to be significantly faster, because they make the
MSR index available at the very beginning of the pipeline instead of at a
relatively late stage.
I understand the motivation for b), but I think this could be achieved without
a) rather easily. And I continue to believe that your reasoning for a) is based
on old facts. But may be I'm just not understanding your concerns with today's
pv_ops implementation.
Juergen
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
|