[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150828045427.GB25556@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 06:54:28 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Cc: dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] x86, fpu: correct and check XSAVE xstate size
calculations
* Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net> wrote:
> +static int xfeature_is_supervisor(int xfeature_nr)
> +{
> + /*
> + * We currently do not suport supervisor states, but if
> + * we did, we could find out like this.
> + *
> + * SDM says: If state component i is a user state component,
> + * ECX[0] return 0; if state component i is a supervisor
> + * state component, ECX[0] returns 1.
> + u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
> + cpuid_count(XSTATE_CPUID, xfeature_nr, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> + return !!(ecx & 1);
> + */
> + return 0;
> +}
So if this CPUID is documented to work, why not use it to sanity check things?
I.e. do something like:
u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
cpuid_count(XSTATE_CPUID, xfeature_nr, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
/* Linux doesn't support supervisor states (yet): */
WARN_ON_ONCE(ecx & 1);
return 0;
That would give us a gentle way to double check our assumptions here.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists