[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1802201815550.24268@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 18:18:12 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
cc: fenghua.yu@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com, gavin.hindman@...el.com,
vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 11/22] x86/intel_rdt: Associate pseudo-locked
regions with its domain
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 2/20/2018 2:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >> In addition to the above research from my side I also followed up with
> >> the CPU architects directly to question the usage of these instructions
> >> instead of wbinvd.
> >
> > What was their answer? This really wants a proper explanation and not just
> > experimentation results as it makes absolutely no sense at all.
>
> I always prefer to provide detailed answers but here I find myself at
> the threshold where I may end up sharing information not publicly known.
> This cannot be the first time you find yourself in this situation. How
> do you prefer to proceed?
Well, if it's secret sauce we'll have to accept it. Though it really does
not improve the confidence in all those mechanisms ....
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists