On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.han...@intel.com> wrote: > On 01/11/2018 07:01 PM, Raj, Ashok wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 06:20:13PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Raj, Ashok <ashok....@intel.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What's wrong with native_read_msr()? >>>> >>>> Yes, i think i should have added to msr.h. The names didn't read as a >>>> pair, one was native_read_msr, wrmsrl could be taken over when paravirt is >>>> defined? >>> >>> Why do you need to override paravirt? >> >> The idea was since these MSR's are passed through we shouldn't need to >> handle them any differently. Also its best to do this as soon as possible >> and avoid longer paths to get this barrier to hardware. > > We were also worried about the indirect calls that are part of the > paravirt interfaces when retpolines are not in place. >
How could those possibly be any worse than any other indirect call in the kernel?
