Hi, Peter, On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 08:31:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:12:59AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote: > > > I don't get why you need a rdmsr here, or why not having one would > > > require a TIF flag. Is that because this MSR is XSAVE/XRSTOR managed? > > > > My concern is TIF flags are precious (only 3 slots available). Defining > > a new TIF flag may be not worth it while rdmsr() can check if PASID > > is valid in the MSR. And performance here might not be a big issue > > in #GP. > > > > But if you think using TIF flag is better, I can define a new TIF flag > > and maintain it per thread (init 0 when clone()/fork(), set 1 in fixup()). > > Then we can avoid using rdmsr() to check valid PASID in the MSR. > > WHY ?!?! What do you need a TIF flag for? We need "a way" to check if the per thread MSR has a valid PASID. If yes, no need to fix up the MSR (wrmsr()), and let other handler to handle the #GP. Otherwise, apply the heuristics and fix up the MSR and exit the #GP. The way to check the valid PASID in the MSR is rdmsr() in this series. A TIF flag will be much faster than rdmsr() and seems a sutiable way to check valid PASID status per thread. That's why it could replace rdmsr() to check PASID in the MSR. Or do you suggest to add a random new flag in struct thread_info instead of a TIF flag? Thanks. -Fenghua _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
