[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F7F4DC3BE@ORSMSX115.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 23:55:49 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v10 6/6] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by
kernel parameter
> Could we pass it through if the host has no HT? Debugging is *so* much easier in a VM. And HT is a bit dubious these days anyway.
Sure ... we can look at doing that in a future series once we get to agreement on the foundation pieces.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists