[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2009301848050.21555@felia>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:53:37 +0200 (CEST)
From: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
Balbir Singh <sblbir@...zon.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-safety@...ts.elisa.tech
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next for tip:x86/pti] x86/tlb: drop unneeded local vars
in enable_l1d_flush_for_task()
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29 2020 at 10:37, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Here, I fixed it..
>
> Well, no. What Balbir is trying to do here is to establish whether a
> task runs on a !SMT core. sched_smt_active() is system wide, but their
> setup is to have a bunch of SMT enabled cores and cores where SMT is off
> because the sibling is offlined. They affine these processes to non SMT
> cores and the check there validates that before it enabled that flush
> thingy.
>
> Of course this is best effort voodoo because if all CPUs in the mask are
> offlined then the task is moved to a SMT enabled one where L1D flush is
> useless. Though offlining their workhorse CPUs is probably not the daily
> business for obvious raisins.
>
Thanks, Thomas.
So, I will keep the semantics as-is, clean up the patch with
preempt_{dis,en}able() and send out a v2.
Lukas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists