Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] x86/xen: Add a Xen-specific sync_core() implementation

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Dec 2, 2016 10:48 AM, "Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 12/02/2016 06:44 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 02/12/16 00:35, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Xen PV, CPUID is likely to trap, and Xen hypercalls aren't
> >> guaranteed to serialize.  (Even CPUID isn't *really* guaranteed to
> >> serialize on Xen PV, but, in practice, any trap it generates will
> >> serialize.)
> > Well, Xen will enabled CPUID Faulting wherever it can, which is
> > realistically all IvyBridge hardware and newer.
> >
> > All hypercalls are a privilege change to cpl0.  I'd hope this condition
> > is serialising, but I can't actually find any documentation proving or
> > disproving this.
> >
> >> On my laptop, CPUID(eax=1, ecx=0) is ~83ns and IRET-to-self is
> >> ~110ns.  But Xen PV will trap CPUID if possible, so IRET-to-self
> >> should end up being a nice speedup.
> >>
> >> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC'ing xen-devel and the Xen maintainers in Linux.
> >
> > As this is the only email from this series in my inbox, I will say this
> > here, but it should really be against patch 6.
> >
> > A write to %cr2 is apparently (http://sandpile.org/x86/coherent.htm) not
> > serialising on the 486, but I don't have a manual to hand to check.
> >
> > ~Andrew
> >
> >> ---
> >>  arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
> >> index bdd855685403..1f765b41eee7 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
> >> @@ -311,6 +311,39 @@ static __read_mostly unsigned int cpuid_leaf1_ecx_set_mask;
> >>  static __read_mostly unsigned int cpuid_leaf5_ecx_val;
> >>  static __read_mostly unsigned int cpuid_leaf5_edx_val;
> >>
> >> +static void xen_sync_core(void)
> >> +{
> >> +    register void *__sp asm(_ASM_SP);
> >> +
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> >> +    asm volatile (
> >> +            "pushl %%ss\n\t"
> >> +            "pushl %%esp\n\t"
> >> +            "addl $4, (%%esp)\n\t"
> >> +            "pushfl\n\t"
> >> +            "pushl %%cs\n\t"
> >> +            "pushl $1f\n\t"
> >> +            "iret\n\t"
> >> +            "1:"
> >> +            : "+r" (__sp) : : "cc");
>
> This breaks 32-bit PV guests.
>
> Why are we pushing %ss? We are not changing privilege levels so why not
> just flags, cs and eip (which, incidentally, does work)?
>

Doh!  I carefully tested 64-bit on Xen and 32-bit in user mode.