[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8/Bx7chrl1DC4Az@zn.tnic>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:32:23 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Moger, Babu" <babu.moger@....com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"quic_neeraju@...cinc.com" <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
"rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com" <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
"songmuchun@...edance.com" <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"jpoimboe@...nel.org" <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
"pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com"
<pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
"jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>,
"daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com" <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
"sandipan.das@....com" <sandipan.das@....com>,
"james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"bagasdotme@...il.com" <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
"Eranian, Stephane" <eranian@...gle.com>,
"christophe.leroy@...roup.eu" <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
"jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>,
"Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"quic_jiles@...cinc.com" <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>,
"peternewman@...gle.com" <peternewman@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 04/13] x86/cpufeatures: Add Bandwidth Monitoring
Event Configuration feature flag
On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 03:43:11PM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> We could make a rule that no more resctrl related features are added to
> cpuinfo but I am hesitant to remove the ones that are already there.
Yes, that makes sense.
And note that we try for /proc/cpuinfo to contain flags where the kernel has
received (substantial) enablement work to support a feature. Shadow stack would
be one good example.
If resctrl needs to use a feature and it cannot use that feature without kernel
enablement, then yes, by all means, it should use /proc/cpuinfo and not the
corresponding CPUID bit. Because the presence of the flag in /proc/cpuinfo says
"yes, you can use the feature and the kernel you're running on has the required
support."
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists