[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200125202951.GD4369@zn.tnic>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 21:29:51 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
"Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 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 v15] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel
On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 11:55:13AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> I don't have a good abbreviation. It would become the joint 2nd longest
> flag name ... top ten lengths look like this on my test machine. So while
> long, not unprecedented.
Yah, I guess we lost that battle long ago.
> Thomas explained how to fix it so we only call the function if TIF_SLD
> is set in either the previous or next process (but not both). So the
> overhead is just extra XOR/AND in the caller.
Yeah.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists