[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <90e071c0-cdf4-3a31-4e44-2c5b84af5fa3@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 10:57:32 -0500
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
bp@...en8.de, mingo@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
eranian@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 2/5] perf/x86/kvm: Avoid unnecessary work in guest
filtering
On 2/4/2019 10:44 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 04:38:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> +static const struct x86_cpu_desc isolation_ucodes[] = {
>> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 9, 0x0000004e),
>> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 10, 0x0000004e),
>> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 11, 0x0000004e),
>> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 12, 0x0000004e),
>
>> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 10, 0x0000004e),
>> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 11, 0x0000004e),
>> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 12, 0x0000004e),
>> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 13, 0x0000004e),
>
> Do we want a special stepping (0 / -1) to be able to denote 'all' ?
>
Something like as below?
#define X86_STEPPING_ANY 0xff
As my understanding, the microcode version for each stepping is
independent and irrelevant. The 0x0000004e should be just coincidence.
If so, I don't think X86_STEPPING_ANY is very useful.
Andi, if I'm wrong please correct me.
Thanks,
Kan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists