[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200727082344.GE119549@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:23:44 +0200
From: peterz@...radead.org
To: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Cathy Zhang <cathy.zhang@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Kyung Min Park <kyung.min.park@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86/cpu: Use SERIALIZE in sync_core() when available
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 09:31:32PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> @@ -75,6 +77,12 @@ static inline void sync_core(void)
> * Like all of Linux's memory ordering operations, this is a
> * compiler barrier as well.
> */
> +
> + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SERIALIZE)) {
> + serialize();
> + return;
> + }
> +
> iret_to_self();
I was sorta expecting something like:
alternative(IRET_TO_SELF, SERIALIZE, X86_FEATURE_SERIALIZE);
But instead you used boot_cpu_has() which is a dynamic test.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists