Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Return to kernel without IRET

[H. Peter Anvin]

Not for return from NMIs themselves, to be sure

On May 3, 2014 4:51:37 PM PDT, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 3:19 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 05/03/2014 04:24 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 May 2014 21:03:10 -0700
>>> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd really like to see a workload which would genuinely benefit
>before
>>>> adding more complexity.  Now... if we can determine that it doesn't
>harm
>>>> anything and would solve the NMI nesting problem cleaner than the
>>>> current solution, that would justify things, too...
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I stated before. It doesn't solve the NMI nesting problem. It
>only
>>> handles page faults. We would have to implement this for breakpoint
>>> return paths too. Is that a plan as well?
>>>
>>
>> I would assume we would do it for *ALL* the IRETs.  There are only
>three
>> IRETs in the kernel last I checked...
>
>I think we should carefully avoid doing it for returns from NMI, though
>:)
>
>If you want a realistic benchmark that will speed up, packet
>forwarding might be a good place to look.
>
>--Andy

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone.  Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/