From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753833AbbI3OBc (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:01:32 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com ([209.85.212.176]:32984 "EHLO mail-wi0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751674AbbI3OB1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:01:27 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:01:22 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , Paolo Bonzini , xen-devel , Arjan van de Ven , Andrew Morton , KVM list , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/msr: Carry on after a non-"safe" MSR access fails without !panic_on_oops Message-ID: <20150930140122.GB3285@gmail.com> References: <130a3b7ef4788baae3a6fe71293ab17442bc9a0a.1442793572.git.luto@kernel.org> <20150921084642.GA30984@gmail.com> <20150930131002.GK2881@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150930131002.GK2881@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:36:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > Linus, what's your preference? > > > > So quite frankly, is there any reason we don't just implement > > native_read_msr() as just > > > > unsigned long long native_read_msr(unsigned int msr) > > { > > int err; > > unsigned long long val; > > > > val = native_read_msr_safe(msr, &err); > > WARN_ON_ONCE(err); > > return val; > > } > > > > Note: no inline, no nothing. Just put it in arch/x86/lib/msr.c, and be > > done with it. I don't see the downside. > > > > How many msr reads are so critical that the function call > > overhead would matter? Get rid of the inline version of the _safe() > > thing too, and put that thing there too. > > There are a few in the perf code, and esp. on cores without a stack engine the > call overhead is noticeable. Also note that the perf MSRs are generally > optimized MSRs and less slow (we cannot say fast, they're still MSRs) than > regular MSRs. These could still be open coded in an inlined fashion, like the scheduler usage. Thanks, Ingo