On 6/16/21 12:23 PM, Bae, Chang Seok wrote:Hi Chang,
On Jun 16, 2021, at 12:01, Hansen, Dave <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:That's odd. How is it possible that the performance of XGETBV(1)
On 6/16/21 11:47 AM, Bae, Chang Seok wrote:This was checked to convince the benefit intended by PATCH25 --
Reading XINUSE via XGETBV is cheap but not free. I don't know spending aIs XGETBV(1) really a hundred cycles? That seems absurdly high for a
hundred cycles for this WARN is big deal but this is one of the most
performance-critical paths.
non-serializing register read.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210523193259.26200-26-chang.seok.bae@xxxxxxxxx/
informed the design of that patch without there being any mention of
XGETBV in the comments or changelog?