From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/kvm: Convert some slow-path static_cpu_has() callers to boot_cpu_has() Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 09:24:06 +0200 Message-ID: <86dc0d5c-88af-dddc-4618-1a0a5a545e5f@redhat.com> References: <20190330112022.28888-1-bp@alien8.de> <20190330112022.28888-4-bp@alien8.de> <2f71cb35-46b2-9ed5-28b3-c6eb5e647b46@redhat.com> <20190331151248.GB15073@zn.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: LKML , Nadav Amit , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Joerg Roedel , kvm@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Thomas Gleixner , x86@kernel.org To: Borislav Petkov Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190331151248.GB15073@zn.tnic> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 31/03/19 17:12, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 04:20:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> These are not slow path. > > Those functions do a *lot* of stuff like a bunch of MSR reads which are > tens of cycles each at least. The MSR reads and writes are not done in the common case. Also, you cannot really expect boot_cpu_data to be in L1 in these functions since they run after the guest---or if they do, each L1 line you fill in with host data is one line you "steal" from the guest. Paolo > I don't think a RIP-relative MOV and a BT: > > movq boot_cpu_data+20(%rip), %rax # MEM[(const long unsigned int *)&boot_cpu_data + 20B], _45 > btq $59, %rax #, _45 > > are at all noticeable. > > On latest AMD and Intel uarch those are 2-4 cycles, according to > > https://agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.ods >