[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZiEMnWaHkn99_oyW@rric.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 14:05:49 +0200
From: Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jgross@...e.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
x86@...nel.org, Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] perf/x86/ibs: Use CPUID region helper
On 16.04.24 19:48:50, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 08:23:58AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > When I was looking at it, I (maybe wrongly) assumed that 0x8000001b and
> > X86_FEATURE_IBS were independent for a reason. Because, oddly enough:
> >
> > #define IBS_CAPS_DEFAULT (IBS_CAPS_AVAIL \
> > | IBS_CAPS_FETCHSAM \
> > | IBS_CAPS_OPSAM)
> >
> > So, if the CPU enumerates X86_FEATURE_IBS but has a
> > max_level<IBS_CPUID_FEATURES then it assumes there's a working IBS
> > because the software-inserted IBS_CAPS_DEFAULT has IBS_CAPS_AVAIL set.
>
> Right, that's why I added Robert. I found this in a F10h doc (old
> Greyhound CPU rust):
>
> "CPUID Fn8000_0001_ECX Feature Identifiers
>
> ...
>
> 10: IBS: Instruction Based Sampling = 1.
>
> ...
>
> CPUID Fn8000_001B Instruction Based Sampling Identifiers
>
> ...
>
> IBSFFV. IBS feature flags valid. Revision B = 0. Revision C = 1."
>
> which makes this look like some hack to fix broken CPUID IBS reporting.
There is the X86_FEATURE_IBS bit (Fn8000_0001_ECX, bit 10) which is
available from the beginning of IBS (all Fam10h production releases,
revB onwards).
And right, IBS_CPUID_FEATURES (CPUID Fn8000_001B) was introduced with
revC. The capabilities of revB are set in IBS_CAPS_DEFAULT.
It doesn't look broken to me, simply the ibs caps field was introduced
later which can be determined checking the return code of
get_cpuid_region_leaf().
>
> And if it is that, I don't think we care, frankly, because revB is
> ooold. Mine is somewhere in the basement on some old board which got
> bricked so I don't know even if I could use it anymore.
>
> And I'm not even planing to - that CPU is almost 20 years old and no one
> cares whether it can even do IBS.
>
> So I wouldn't mind at all if we simplify this code for the sake of it.
> I don't think anyone would care or notice.
>
> But let's see what Robert says first...
My preference would be:
[...]
if (!get_cpuid_region_leaf(IBS_CPUID_FEATURES, CPUID_EAX, &caps))
return IBS_CAPS_DEFAULT;
if (caps & IBS_CAPS_AVAIL)
return caps;
return 0;
[...]
Not too complex?
This slightly modifies the functionality so that 0 is return if
!IBS_CAPS_AVAIL (instead of IBS_CAPS_DEFAULT). The feature could be
disabled then by overriding IBS_CAPS_AVAIL by just clearing the ibs
leaf, valid even for newer systems.
Thanks,
-Robert
Powered by blists - more mailing lists