From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933096AbbIURH6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:07:58 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:44338 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932864AbbIURH4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:07:56 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,568,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="809577899" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/msr: Carry on after a non-"safe" MSR access fails without !panic_on_oops To: Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar References: <130a3b7ef4788baae3a6fe71293ab17442bc9a0a.1442793572.git.luto@kernel.org> <20150921084642.GA30984@gmail.com> Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , Paolo Bonzini , xen-devel , Andrew Morton , KVM list , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Peter Zijlstra From: Arjan van de Ven Message-ID: <56003506.1050100@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:49:10 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 9/21/2015 9:36 AM, 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? if anything qualifies it'd be switch_to() and friends. note that I'm not entirely happy about the notion of "safe" MSRs. They're safe as in "won't fault". Reading random MSRs isn't a generic safe operation though, but the name sort of gives people the impression that it is. Even with _safe variants, you still need to KNOW the MSR exists (by means of CPUID or similar) unfortunately.