linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/smpboot: check if CLFLUSH is actually necessary

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150212091610.GA24269@pd.tnic>
Date:	Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:16:10 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Scotty Bauer <sbauer@....utah.edu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/smpboot: check if CLFLUSH is actually necessary

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:10:12PM -0700, Scotty Bauer wrote:
> Do you get the same effect? Sure, but is the previous way the right
> way to do it? In my opinion no, but I'm not the one merging code
> its up to someone more experienced to determine if the change is
> warranted. The change is slightly faster on non-buggy cpu, but like
> you mention, is that relevant when the machine is going into idle?

Right, it probably doesn't matter on the way to idle but we could do the
change just to make the code the same as in mwait_idle_with_hints() so
that there are no more why-is-this-different questions in the future.

Or even make it a small function called prepare_monitor() and put the
if-check in there and call that function in both places...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/