[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20c6fa3d-949d-156a-6d74-89829e3bffdf@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 19:55:53 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Ramakrishna Saripalli <rsaripal@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: bsd@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [v6 1/1] x86/bugs: Implement mitigation for Predictive Store
Forwarding
Hi again,
On 5/17/21 3:00 PM, Ramakrishna Saripalli wrote:
> From: Ramakrishna Saripalli <rk.saripalli@....com>
>
> Certain AMD processors feature a new technology called Predictive Store
> Forwarding (PSF).
>
> PSF is a micro-architectural optimization designed to improve the
> performance of code execution by predicting dependencies between
> loads and stores.
>
> Incorrect PSF predictions can occur due to two reasons.
>
...
>
> Kernel parameter predictive_store_fwd_disable has the following values
>
> - on. Disable PSF on all CPUs.
>
> - off. Enable PSF on all CPUs.
> This is also the default setting.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ramakrishna Saripalli<rk.saripalli@....com>
> ---
> .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 5 +
> arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h | 1 +
> arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h | 2 +
> arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h | 6 ++
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c | 94 +++++++++++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 108 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> index 04545725f187..a5f694dccb24 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -3940,6 +3940,11 @@
> Format: {"off"}
> Disable Hardware Transactional Memory
>
> + predictive_store_fwd_disable= [X86] This option controls PSF.
> + off - Turns on PSF.
> + on - Turns off PSF.
> + default : off.
and as I did earlier, I still object to "off" meaning PSF is on
and "on" meaning that PSF is off.
It's not at all user friendly.
If it's done this way because that's how the h/w bit is defined/used,
that's not a good excuse IMHO.
Hm, it sorta seems to be a common "theme" when dealing with mitigations.
And too late to fix that.
I look forward to h/w that doesn't need mitigations. ;)
--
~Randy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists