[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7e859e72-4624-73c7-8195-c252ace0a49d@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 10:17:11 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Yian Chen <yian.chen@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ravi Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
Paul Lai <paul.c.lai@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] x86/cpu: Enable LASS (Linear Address Space
Separation)
On 1/9/23 21:52, Yian Chen wrote:
> +static __always_inline void setup_lass(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> +{
> + if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_LASS)) {
> + cr4_set_bits(X86_CR4_LASS);
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * only clear the feature and cr4 bits when hardware
> + * supports LASS, in case it was enabled in a previous
> + * boot (e.g., via kexec)
> + */
> + if (cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_LASS)) {
> + cr4_clear_bits(X86_CR4_LASS);
> + clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_LASS);
> + }
> + }
> +}
Could you try testing this, please?
Please remember that there are three things in play here:
1. disabled-features.h. Makes cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_LASS)==0
when CONFIG_X86_LASS=n.
2. The X86_FEATURE_LASS software feature bit itself. clearcpuid=lass
would clear it.
3. The actual CPU enumeration of X86_FEATURE_LASS
The else{} is handling the case where X86_FEATURE_LASS is compiled out
but where the CPU supports LASS. It doesn't do anything when the CPU
lacks LASS support *OR* when clearcpuid=lass is used.
In the end, want X86_CR4_LASS set when the kernel wants LASS and clear
in *ALL* other cases. That would be simply:
if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_LASS)) {
cr4_set_bits(X86_CR4_LASS);
} else {
cr4_clear_bits(X86_CR4_LASS);
}
The cr4_clear_bits(X86_CR4_LASS) should be safe regardless of CPU or
kernel support for LASS.
As for the:
clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_LASS);
It really only matters for kernels where CONFIG_X86_LASS=n but where the
CPU supports it. I'm not clear on what specifically you expect to gain
from it, though.
I'm also wondering if we even want a Kconfig option. Is anyone
realistically going to be compiling this support out?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists