From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753457AbcHQT07 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:26:59 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43634 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752971AbcHQT06 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:26:58 -0400
Subject: Re: RFC: Petition Intel/AMD to add POPF_IF insn
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
References: <f2d39812-8e2b-ed32-398f-8bb32bd20c7f@redhat.com>
 <CA+55aFy0zq5h7zXcL7KNZuhvVHUZvA__U4ztJvP_WTCN+dub2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <8de26c33-5597-bf00-2ac5-d265ba01d0d4@redhat.com>
 <CA+55aFwmxwQBkyDjombS4cy1q=a_buhmDjDnaa8rdC8ZDaDYEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrXOuomfta==NmAu3WEsgj69t+-Vi0pwtM0_MHRjn=v_tw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Sara Sharon <sara.sharon@intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
From: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <d1c78779-b885-8e3e-a87a-a586b18423fc@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 21:26:54 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrXOuomfta==NmAu3WEsgj69t+-Vi0pwtM0_MHRjn=v_tw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Wed, 17 Aug 2016 19:26:57 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 08/17/2016 09:13 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 2016 11:41 AM, "Denys Vlasenko" <dvlasenk@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> OTOH 5 years will inevitably pass.
>>
>> Yes. But in five years, maybe we'll have a popf that is faster anyway.
>>
>> I'd actually prefer that in the end. The problem with popf right now seems
>> to be mainly that it's effectively serializing and does stupid things in
>> microcode. It doesn't have to be that way. It could actually do much better,
>> but it hasn't been a high enough priority for Intel.
>>
>
> It wouldn't surprise me if that were easier said than done.  popf
> potentially changes AC, and AC affects address translation.  popf also
> potentially changes IOPL, and I don't know whether Intel chips track
> IOPL in a way that lets them find all the dependent instructions
> without serializing.  But maybe their pipeline is fancy enough.

Exactly. And more:

POPF potentially changes TF (and it works even in CPL3).
POPD changes DF - must serialize versus string insns.
POPF changes NT - must serialize versus IRET insns.
POPF changes VIF, from a different bit in a popped value,
and under a rather complex conditions.

Intel's documentation has a pseudo-code for the instructions.
For POPF, that pseudo-code is two pages long...