[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f36306aa-cc28-ae2e-1a7e-a6b69c474daf@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:32:50 -0600
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
CC: <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 04/20] x86: Handle reduction in physical address
size with SME
On 11/15/2016 6:10 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:35:13PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * AMD Secure Memory Encryption (SME) can reduce the size of the physical
>> + * address space if it is enabled, even if memory encryption is not active.
>> + * Adjust x86_phys_bits if SME is enabled.
>> + */
>> +static void phys_bits_adjust(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>> +{
>
> Better call this function amd_sme_phys_bits_adjust(). This name makes it
> clear at the call-site why it is there and what it does.
Will do.
>
>> + u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
>> + u64 msr;
>> +
>> + if (c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (c->extended_cpuid_level < 0x8000001f)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + /* Check for SME feature */
>> + cpuid(0x8000001f, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
>> + if (!(eax & 0x01))
>> + return;
>
> Maybe add a comment here why you can't use cpu_has (yet).
>
Ok, will do.
Thanks,
Tom
Powered by blists - more mailing lists