lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [tip: perf/core] x86/cpufeatures: Add Architectural LBRs feature bit
From
Date


On 7/9/2020 7:00 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 7/8/20 2:51 AM, tip-bot2 for Kan Liang wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
>> index 02dabc9..72ba4c5 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
>> @@ -366,6 +366,7 @@
>> #define X86_FEATURE_MD_CLEAR (18*32+10) /* VERW clears CPU buffers */
>> #define X86_FEATURE_TSX_FORCE_ABORT (18*32+13) /* "" TSX_FORCE_ABORT */
>> #define X86_FEATURE_PCONFIG (18*32+18) /* Intel PCONFIG */
>> +#define X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR (18*32+19) /* Intel ARCH LBR */
>> #define X86_FEATURE_SPEC_CTRL (18*32+26) /* "" Speculation Control (IBRS + IBPB) */
>> #define X86_FEATURE_INTEL_STIBP (18*32+27) /* "" Single Thread Indirect Branch Predictors */
>> #define X86_FEATURE_FLUSH_L1D (18*32+28) /* Flush L1D cache */
>
> Are architectural LBRs useful *without* XSAVE?

Yes, previous model-specific LBRs don't have XSAVE support, but it's
still widely used.

Adding XSAVE is more based on performance considerations. It doesn't
impact the existing LBR capabilities.

I once talked with our virtualization team. They also want us to support
both XSAVE and non-XSAVE version of LBRs. If the XSAVE is not available,
we should fall back to the previous MSR method.

I don't think we should make Arch LBR depends on XSAVE.

Thanks,
Kan

> If not, should we add an
> entry in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpuid-deps.c::cpuid_deps[] for this?
>
> ...
> { X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR, X86_FEATURE_XSAVES },
> ...
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-10 16:10    [W:0.111 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site