[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8898674D84E3B24BA3A2D289B872026A6A2C03E0@G01JPEXMBKW03>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:54:51 +0000
From: "Zhang, Lei" <zhang.lei@...fujitsu.com>
To: 'Catalin Marinas' <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC: 'Mark Rutland' <mark.rutland@....com>,
"'will.deacon@....com'" <will.deacon@....com>,
"'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"'linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org'"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/1] arm64: Add workaround for Fujitsu A64FX erratum
010001
Hi Catalin,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-arm-kernel
> [mailto:linux-arm-kernel-bounces@...ts.infradead.org] On Behalf Of
> Catalin Marinas
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019 3:08 AM
> To: Zhang, Lei/張 雷
> Cc: 'Mark Rutland'; 'will.deacon@....com';
> 'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org';
> 'linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org'
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] arm64: Add workaround for Fujitsu A64FX
> erratum 010001
>
> IIUC, this can happen very early when the errata framework isn't yet
> ready. Given that this is not on a fast path (you already took a fault),
> I don't think it's worth optimising for cpus_have_cap() (and
> ARM64_WORKAROUND_FUJITSU_A64FX_0100001). I've seen Mark's comments on
> why checking MIDR in a preemptible context is not a good idea but I
> suspect your platform is homogeneous (i.e. not big.LITTLE).
Thanks for comment.
I will post a new patch to resolve fast path problem in today.
By the way our platform is homogeneous.
Best Regards,
Lei Zhang
zhang.lei@...fujitsu.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists