Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/speculation: switch_to_cond_stibp on is the likely case

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 10:38:00AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 12/06/2018 03:41 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 02:49:28PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > >> Since conditional STIBP is the default, it should be treated as
> > >> the likely case. Changes the use of static_branch_unlikely() to
> > >> static_branch_likely() for switch_to_cond_stibp.
> > > So now you're making kernels on 'fixed' or unaffected hardware slower.
> > 
> > Good point.
> > 
> > The reason I sent out this patch is because of the inconsistency in the
> > use of likely/unlikely hints.
> > 
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c:156:        if
> > (static_branch_unlikely(&switch_to_cond_stibp))
> > arch/x86/kernel/process.c:440:       
> > static_branch_unlikely(&switch_to_cond_stibp)) {
> > arch/x86/kernel/process.h:26:        if
> > (!static_branch_likely(&switch_to_cond_stibp)) {
> > 
> > So if we are aiming to optimize for "fixed" or unaffected hardware,
> > maybe we should modify the likely hint to unlikely then.
> 
> Right, I think that makes sense, Thomas?

Yeah, I probably got that wrong in some places. Let me look.

Thanks,

	Thomas