On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 06:16:35PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 2020-11-27 17:24, Quentin Perret wrote: > > On Friday 27 Nov 2020 at 17:14:11 (+0000), Marc Zyngier wrote: > > [...] > > > > Yeah, the sanitized read feels better, if only because that is > > > what we are going to read in all the valid cases, unfortunately. > > > read_sanitised_ftr_reg() is sadly not designed to be called on > > > a fast path, meaning that 32bit guests will do a bsearch() on > > > the ID-regs every time they exit... > > > > > > I guess we will have to evaluate how much we loose with this. > > > > Could we use the trick we have for arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0 to speed this > > up? > > Maybe. I want to first verify whether this has any measurable impact. > Another possibility would be to cache the last read_sanitised_ftr_reg() > access, just to see if that helps. There shouldn't be that many code > paths hammering it. We don't have huge numbers of ID registers, so the bsearch shouldn't be too expensive. However, I'd like to remind myself why we can't index into the feature register array directly as we _should_ know all of this stuff at compile time, right? Will
