[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57d63309-51cd-4138-889d-43fbdf5ec790@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 10:18:21 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
thomas.lendacky@....com, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: bp@...en8.de, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, dionnaglaze@...gle.com,
pgonda@...gle.com, seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/14] x86/tsc: Mark Secure TSC as reliable clocksource
On 10/29/23 23:36, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
...
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> index 15f97c0abc9d..b0a8546d3703 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> @@ -1241,7 +1241,7 @@ static void __init check_system_tsc_reliable(void)
> tsc_clocksource_reliable = 1;
> }
> #endif
> - if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE))
> + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE) || cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_GUEST_SECURE_TSC))
> tsc_clocksource_reliable = 1;
Why can't you just set X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists