Messages in this thread | | | From | Arvind Sankar <> | Date | Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:21:33 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v12] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel |
| |
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 05:23:17PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 07:45:08PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:24:34PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote: > > > >> +static enum split_lock_detect_state sld_state = sld_warn; > > > >> + > > > > > > > > This sets sld_state to sld_warn even on CPUs that don't support > > > > split-lock detection. split_lock_init will then try to read/write the > > > > MSR to turn it on. Would it be better to initialize it to sld_off and > > > > set it to sld_warn in split_lock_setup instead, which is only called if > > > > the CPU supports the feature? > > > > > > I've lost some bits of this patch series somewhere along the way :-( There > > > was once code to decide whether the feature was supported (either with > > > x86_match_cpu() for a couple of models, or using the architectural test > > > based on some MSR bits. I need to dig that out and put it back in. Then > > > stuff can check X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK before wandering into code > > > that messes with MSRs > > > > That code is still there (cpu_set_core_cap_bits). The issue is that with > > the initialization here, nothing ever sets sld_state to sld_off if the > > feature isn't supported. > > > > v10 had a corresponding split_lock_detect_enabled that was > > 0-initialized, but Peter's patch as he sent out had the flag initialized > > to sld_warn. > > Ah yes. Maybe the problem is that split_lock_init() is only > called on systems that support split loc detect, while we call > split_lock_init() unconditionally.
It was unconditional in v10 too?
> > What if we start with sld_state = sld_off, and then have split_lock_setup > set it to either sld_warn, or whatever the user chose on the command > line. Patch below (on top of patch so you can see what I'm saying, > but will just merge it in for next version.
Yep, that's what I suggested.
> > -Tony > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c > index 7478bebcd735..b6046ccfa372 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c > @@ -39,7 +39,13 @@ enum split_lock_detect_state { > sld_fatal, > }; > > -static enum split_lock_detect_state sld_state = sld_warn; > +/* > + * Default to sld_off because most systems do not support > + * split lock detection. split_lock_setup() will switch this > + * to sld_warn, and then check to see if there is a command > + * line override. > + */ > +static enum split_lock_detect_state sld_state = sld_off; > > /* > * Just in case our CPU detection goes bad, or you have a weird system, > @@ -1017,10 +1023,11 @@ static inline bool match_option(const char *arg, int arglen, const char *opt) > > static void __init split_lock_setup(void) > { > - enum split_lock_detect_state sld = sld_state; > + enum split_lock_detect_state sld;
This is bike-shedding, but initializing sld = sld_warn here would have been enough with no other changes to the patch I think?
| |