[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1806221122130.2402@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:25:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/16] x86/split_lock: Enable #AC exception for split
locked accesses
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> The control knob for user is to choose killing the process (default) or
> re-executing the faulting instruction without blocking the process.
> Re-executing the instruction maybe be useful in platforms that run
> well controlled apps with less split locks.
Again, that's totally overengineered ballast. If you care, kill the thing
and if not, then disable #AC. There are other architectures which trap on
any unaligned access, so it's nothing new.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists