Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1383313 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-20 13:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-04-20 16:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 13:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86/intel lbr: down with test_thread_flag(TIF_IA32) |
| Message-ID | <rpYuv-75L-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
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? 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.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@virtuozzo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 16:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rq0PE-jH-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1383313 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web