Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86/intel lbr: down with test_thread_flag(TIF_IA32)

From	Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@virtuozzo.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86/intel lbr: down with test_thread_flag(TIF_IA32)
Date	2016-04-20 16:00 +0200
Message-ID	<rq0PE-jH-23@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<rnU1X-6dp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rnU1X-6dp-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <rnV7I-77H-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <rpYuv-75L-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 04/20/2016 02:21 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:29:12PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>> @@ -724,7 +727,7 @@ static int branch_type(unsigned long from, unsigned long to, int abort)
>>>           * on 64-bit systems running 32-bit apps
>>>           */
>>>   #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>>> -       is64 = kernel_ip((unsigned long)addr) || !test_thread_flag(TIF_IA32);
>>> +       is64 = kernel_ip((unsigned long)addr) || user_64bit_mode(regs);
>> Peterz, looking at this some more, would it make sense to pass
>> user_regs and interrupt_regs (or whatever we'd call it) all the way
>> through to here?
> Urgh; again, wtf wasn't I Cc'ed to these patches?

Sorry for that - that was my unintentional miss on git-send-email.

> And not sure; if we never need the user regs, calling
> perf_get_user_regs() to set all that up seems like a massive waste of
> cycles.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86/intel lbr: down with test_thread_flag(TIF_IA32) Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-04-20 13:30 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86/intel lbr: down with test_thread_flag(TIF_IA32) Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@virtuozzo.com> - 2016-04-20 16:00 +0200

csiph-web