[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200729200906.GC2655@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:09:06 +0200
From: peterz@...radead.org
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
"Li, Xiaoyao" <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/bus_lock: Enable bus lock detection
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 01:00:33PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Why do they need to be exclusive? We've already established that BLD catches
> things that SLD does not. What's wrong with running sld=fatal and bld=ratelimit
> so that split locks never happen and kill applications, and non-WB locks are
> are ratelimited?
It's all moot until there's a sane proposal for #DB that isn't utterly
wrecked.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists