Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/msr: Carry on after a non-"safe" MSR access fails without !panic_on_oops

From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Wed Sep 30 2015 - 14:33:23 EST

On 09/21/2015 09:36 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> How many msr reads are <i>so</i> 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.

Probably only the ones that may go in the context switch path.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at