[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <A86B173C-857C-4B7B-A543-BE967F9A1868@vmware.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 16:39:11 +0000
From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
"Kenneth R. Crudup" <kenny@...ix.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [patch v2 1/2] x86,module: Detect VMX modules and disable
Split-Lock-Detect
> On Apr 2, 2020, at 9:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>
> Learn to trim your replies already!
>
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 12:20:08AM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
>> On 4/2/2020 11:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>>> +bad_module:
>>> + pr_warn("disabled due to VMX in module: %s\n", me->name);
>>> + sld_state = sld_off;
>>
>> shouldn't we remove the __ro_after_init of sld_state?
>
> Oh, that's probably a good idea. I can't actually test this due to no
> hardware.
Just wondering, since I lack hardware as well: can the performance counter
LOCK_CYCLES.SPLIT_LOCK_UC_LOCK_DURATION be used to detect split-locks
similarly to SLD (although it would be after the split-lock event)?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists