From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] x86, msr: allow rdmsr_safe_on_cpu() to schedule
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:12:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180325141242.GC21878@pd.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <336355a3-c11d-44fc-0642-671670980ac0@gmail.com>
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 07:29:48AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> It is named gsysd, "Google System Tool", a daemon+cli that is run
> on all machines in production to provide a generic interface
> for interacting with the system hardware.
So I'm wondering if poking at the hardware like that is a really optimal
design. Maybe it would be cleaner if the OS would provide properly
abstracted sysfs interfaces instead of raw MSRs. For a couple of
reasons:
* different vendors have different MSR ranges giving the same info so
instead of differentiating that in your daemon, we can do that nicely in
the kernel.
* exposing raw MSRs instead of having clearly defined sysfs files is
always a pain when a new CPU decides to change those MSRs. Hiding that
change in the OS is always easier.
* periodically polling MSRs which don't change that often is, of course,
wasting power and so reading a cached result is leaner.
* <another reason which I'll think of after hitting send... :\ >
In general, we should've never have had exposed that raw MSR access but
it is too late now - that ship has sailed. We can still try to design
new interfaces more cleanly, though.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-25 14:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-23 21:58 [PATCH v3 1/2] x86, msr: allow rdmsr_safe_on_cpu() to schedule Eric Dumazet
2018-03-23 21:58 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] x86, cpuid: allow cpuid_read() " Eric Dumazet
2018-03-23 22:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
2018-03-24 1:01 ` Eric Dumazet
2018-03-25 22:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
2018-03-27 10:10 ` [tip:x86/cleanups] x86/cpuid: Allow " tip-bot for Eric Dumazet
2018-03-24 8:09 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] x86, msr: allow rdmsr_safe_on_cpu() " Ingo Molnar
2018-03-24 10:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-03-24 14:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2018-03-25 14:12 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2018-03-26 1:21 ` H. Peter Anvin
2018-03-26 6:40 ` Ingo Molnar
[not found] ` <CANn89iKy_jVpBvAebJFm1UKVKfG=p+R4B1tXmC4waeK7YzZh2g@mail.gmail.com>
2018-03-26 14:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-03-27 9:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-03-27 10:10 ` [tip:x86/cleanups] x86/msr: Allow " tip-bot for Eric Dumazet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180325141242.GC21878@pd.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox