linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] x86/intel_rdt: Implement scheduling support for Intel RDT

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

Date:	Mon, 18 May 2015 12:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...el.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc:	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...el.com>,
	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
	mingo@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	matt.fleming@...el.com, will.auld@...el.com,
	peter.zijlstra@...el.com, h.peter.anvin@...el.com,
	kanaka.d.juvva@...el.com, mtosatti@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] x86/intel_rdt: Implement scheduling support for
 Intel RDT



On Mon, 18 May 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Mon, 18 May 2015, Vikas Shivappa wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 May 2015, Vikas Shivappa wrote:
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * This needs to be fixed
>>>> +	 * to cache the whole PQR instead of just CLOSid.
>>>> +	 * PQR has closid in high 32 bits and CQM-RMID in low 10 bits.
>>>> +	 * Should not write a 0 to the low 10 bits of PQR
>>>> +	 * and corrupt RMID.
>>>
>>> And why is this not fixed __BEFORE__ this patch? You can do the
>>> changes to struct intel_cqm_state in a seperate patch and then do the
>>> proper implementation from the beginning instead of providing a half
>>> broken variant which gets replaced in the next patch.
>>
>> Ok , can fix both items in your comments. Reason I had it seperately is that
>> the cache affects both cmt and cache allocation patches.
>
> And that's the wrong reason. Sure it affects both, but we first
> prepare the changes to the existing code and then build new stuff on
> top of it not the other way round. Building the roof before the
> basement is almost never a good idea.

Ok , will merge all scheduing changes to one patch if you think thats better.

Thanks,
Vikas

>
> Thanks,
>
> 	tglx
>
>
>
--
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/