On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Tim Chen wrote:
> I think it will be cleaner just to fold the msr update into
> __speculation_ctrl_update to fix this issue.
Yes, that looks nicer and avoids a couple of extra static_cpu_has()
evaluations. I'll fold it into the proper places.
Thanks,
tglx
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Tim Chen wrote:
> I think it will be cleaner just to fold the msr update into
> __speculation_ctrl_update to fix this issue.
Yes, that looks nicer and avoids a couple of extra static_cpu_has()
evaluations. I'll fold it into the proper places.
Thanks,
tglx
On 11/27/2018 02:42 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>>> On 11/25/2018 12:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
@@ -406,6 +406,11 @@ static
On 11/27/2018 02:42 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>>> On 11/25/2018 12:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
@@ -406,6 +406,11 @@ static
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> > On 11/25/2018 12:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > > @@ -406,6 +406,11 @@ static __always_inline void spec_ctrl_up
> > > if
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> > On 11/25/2018 12:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > > @@ -406,6 +406,11 @@ static __always_inline void spec_ctrl_up
> > > if
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> On 11/25/2018 12:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > @@ -406,6 +406,11 @@ static __always_inline void spec_ctrl_up
> > if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SSBD))
> > msr
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> On 11/25/2018 12:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > @@ -406,6 +406,11 @@ static __always_inline void spec_ctrl_up
> > if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SSBD))
> > msr
On 11/27/2018 09:25 AM, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
>> @@ -148,6 +148,10 @@ x86_virt_spec_ctrl(u64 guest_spec_ctrl,
>> static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AMD_SSBD))
>> hostval |=
On 11/27/2018 09:25 AM, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
>> @@ -148,6 +148,10 @@ x86_virt_spec_ctrl(u64 guest_spec_ctrl,
>> static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AMD_SSBD))
>> hostval |=
On 11/25/2018 12:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> To avoid the overhead of STIBP always on, it's necessary to allow per task
> control of STIBP.
>
> Add a new task flag TIF_SPEC_IB and evaluate it during context switch if
> SMT is active and flag evaluation is enabled by the speculation control
>
On 11/25/2018 12:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> To avoid the overhead of STIBP always on, it's necessary to allow per task
> control of STIBP.
>
> Add a new task flag TIF_SPEC_IB and evaluate it during context switch if
> SMT is active and flag evaluation is enabled by the speculation control
>
To avoid the overhead of STIBP always on, it's necessary to allow per task
control of STIBP.
Add a new task flag TIF_SPEC_IB and evaluate it during context switch if
SMT is active and flag evaluation is enabled by the speculation control
code. Add the conditional evaluation to
To avoid the overhead of STIBP always on, it's necessary to allow per task
control of STIBP.
Add a new task flag TIF_SPEC_IB and evaluate it during context switch if
SMT is active and flag evaluation is enabled by the speculation control
code. Add the conditional evaluation to
14 matches
Mail list logo