[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170425125913.5nnd436dz54q7cld@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:59:13 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, msr: Better document AMD "tweak MSRs", rename
MSR_F15H_IC_CFG
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 02:16:55PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> However, all IBS registers are in this range.
I knew you were gonna say that. But IBS registers are architectural too
in the sense that they are behind a CPUID bit.
> DRi_ADDR_MASK are in this range - and these are very useful, likely to
> stay.
Those are too behind a CPUID bit.
> In the arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h file we already have
> three "tweak" MSRs defined with "AMD64":
>
> #define MSR_AMD64_LS_CFG 0xc0011020
> #define MSR_AMD64_DC_CFG 0xc0011022
> #define MSR_AMD64_BU_CFG2 0xc001102a
>
> I just noticed that we have a fourth one in
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c:
>
> #define MSR_AMD64_DE_CFG 0xC0011029
That's wrong. I think we should call those something else but not
"AMD64". Perhaps the families for which the workaround is being applied.
In the last case, MSR_F12H_DE_CFG, for example. And yes, I should've
paid attention to that but ...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists