linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] docs: ABI: Add sysfs documentation interface of hardware prefetch driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 8 Nov 2021 01:29:44 +0000
From:   "tarumizu.kohei@...itsu.com" <tarumizu.kohei@...itsu.com>
To:     'Dave Hansen' <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] docs: ABI: Add sysfs documentation interface
 of hardware prefetch driver

Hi,

Thanks for your comment.

> How does this look in practice?

It works on a x86 machine is shown below:

# find /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/hwpf/
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/hwpf/
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/hwpf/l2
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/hwpf/l2/enable
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/hwpf/l1
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/hwpf/l1/enable

> Dumb question, but why don't we give these things names?  If the Intel one is
> called "L2 Hardware Prefetcher Disable", couldn't the directory be "l2_prefetch"?

There is no specific reason for directory names. We named it "l*"
because it is related to a certain cache level. We would change it,
if there is another suitable name.

> BTW, your "reliable" is mismatched with the "strong" value in the docs.

Sorry, that's our mistake. The "strong" is correct.