linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] x86/umwait: Add sysfs interface to control umwait C0.2 state

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALCETrXnOKo3daWp-oSwaVZagQ_iP7SHCbpoB2VioWhRds5gqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jun 2019 15:59:28 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] x86/umwait: Add sysfs interface to control umwait
 C0.2 state

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 3:57 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 09:26:29PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 9:14 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 03:52:03PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 3:10 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > C0.2 state in umwait and tpause instructions can be enabled or disabled
> > > > > on a processor through IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL MSR register.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > +static u32 get_umwait_control_c02(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +       return umwait_control_cached & MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL_C02;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static u32 get_umwait_control_max_time(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +       return umwait_control_cached & MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL_MAX_TIME;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > I'm not convinced that these helpers make the code any more readable.
> > >
> > > The helpers reduce length of statements that call them. Otherwise, all of
> > > the statements would be easily over 80 characters.
> > >
> > > Plus, each of the helpers is called multiple places in #0003 and #0004.
> > > So the helpers make the patches smaller and cleaner.
> > >
> >
> > I was imagining things like:
> >
> > umwait_control_cached &= ~MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL_C02;
> > if (whatever condition)
> >   umwait_control_cached |= MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL_C02;
> > umwait_control_cached &= ~MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL_MAX_TIME;
> > umwait_control_cached |= new_max_time;
>
> How about this statement?
> With the helpers:
>         umwait_control_cached = max_time | get_umwait_control_c02();
> If there is no helpers, the above statement will need two statements:
>         umwait_control_cached &= ~MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL_MAX_TIME;
>         umwait_control_cached |= max_time;
>
> Another example:
> With the helpers:
>         if (umwait_control_c02 == get_umwait_control_c02())
> If no helpers, the above statement will be long:
>        if (umwait_control_c02 == (umwait_control_cached & MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL_C02_DISABLED))
>
> There are quite a few places like above examples.
>
> The helpers can reduce the length of those long lines and make code more
> readable and shorter, right?
>
> Can I still keep the helpers?
>

Sure, unless someone else objects.