Re: RFC, untested: handing of MSR immediates and MSRs on Xen

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 10/23/24 14:31, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Note: I haven't added tracepoint handling yet. *Ideally* tracepoints 
> would be patched over the main callsite instead of using a separate 
> static_key() -- which also messes up register allocation due to the 
> subsequent call. This is a general problem with tracepoints which 
> perhaps is better handled separately.

So I have never quite wrapped my head around how heavyweight tracepoints 
actually are. I do know that static_key() is definitely not a perfect 
optimization barrier[*].

The case of MSR tracepoints in particular concerns me, because having 
one knob for all MSRs is an *incredibly* wide net to cast, and doesn't 
distinguish in any way between performance-sensitive and 
non-performance-sensitive MSRs.

I do wonder if tracepoint sites could be implemented using traps (or 
perhaps better, software interrupts) especially in critical flows, or if 
that would increase the cost of the tracing too much.

	-hpa


[*] One thing we may want to consider in general is if we should 
increase the bias for __builtin_expect() by passing 
-fbuiltin-expect-probability to gcc, or use 
__builtin_expect_with_probability().