Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/msr: Carry on after a non-"safe" MSR access fails without !panic_on_oops

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/21/2015 9:36 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Linus, what's your preference?
> So quite frankly, is there any reason we don't just implement
> native_read_msr() as just
>
>     unsigned long long native_read_msr(unsigned int msr)
>     {
>        int err;
>        unsigned long long val;
>
>        val = native_read_msr_safe(msr, &err);
>        WARN_ON_ONCE(err);
>        return val;
>     }
>
> Note: no inline, no nothing. Just put it in arch/x86/lib/msr.c, and be
> done with it. I don't see the downside.
>
> How many msr reads are <i>so</i> critical that the function call
> overhead would matter?
if anything qualifies it'd be switch_to() and friends.

note that I'm not entirely happy about the notion of "safe" MSRs.
They're safe as in "won't fault".
Reading random MSRs isn't a generic safe operation though, but the name sort of 
gives people
the impression that it is. Even with _safe variants, you still need to KNOW the 
MSR exists (by means
of CPUID or similar) unfortunately.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel