[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yy1m/5topydhbWS2@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 09:57:51 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de, tglx@...utronix.de,
puwen@...on.cn, mario.limonciello@....com, rui.zhang@...el.com,
gpiccoli@...lia.com, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
ananth.narayan@....com, gautham.shenoy@....com,
Calvin Ong <calvin.ong@....com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
regressions@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: processor_idle: Skip dummy wait for processors
based on the Zen microarchitecture
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 02:21:31PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> FWIW, I'd much rather do something like
>
> if ((boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) &&
> (boot_cpu_data.x86_model >= 0xF))
> return;
>
> inl(slow_whatever);
>
> than a Zen check. AMD has, as far as I know, been a lot more sequential
> and sane about model numbers than Intel, and there are some AMD model
> number range checks in the codebase today.
Some might be broken; apparently their SoC/Entertainment divisions has a
few out of order SKUs that were not listed in their regular documents.
(yay interweb)
I ran into this when I tried doing a Zen2 range check for retbleed. In
the end we ended up using the availablility of STIBP as a heuristic to
indentify Zen2+ or something.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists