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]

Message-ID: <d9c31c0a-a0ce-452d-7f7d-df535eb5e918@intel.com>
Date:   Sun, 7 Nov 2021 17:49:06 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     "tarumizu.kohei@...itsu.com" <tarumizu.kohei@...itsu.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

On 11/7/21 5:29 PM, tarumizu.kohei@...itsu.com wrote:
>> 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.

Ahh, so you really do intend the l2 directory to be for *all* the L2
prefetchers?  I guess that's OK, but will folks ever want to do "L2
Hardware Prefetcher Disable", but not "L2 Adjacent Cache Line Prefetcher
Disable"?