> From: Peter Zijlstra
> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 2:59 AM
> ...
> So I think the reason your above module doesn't work, while the one in
> vmx_init() does work (for 5.10) should be fixed by the completely
> untested below.
>
> I've no clue about 5.4 and no desire to investigate. That's
+++ Peter Zijlstra [16/12/20 14:23 +0100]:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 02:10:16PM +0100, Jessica Yu wrote:
+++ Peter Zijlstra [16/12/20 13:47 +0100]:
> Only because we're having .init=false, incorrectly. See the other email.
Ah yeah, you're right. I also misread the intention of the if
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 02:10:16PM +0100, Jessica Yu wrote:
> +++ Peter Zijlstra [16/12/20 13:47 +0100]:
> > Only because we're having .init=false, incorrectly. See the other email.
>
> Ah yeah, you're right. I also misread the intention of the if
> conditional :/ If we're currently running an
+++ Peter Zijlstra [16/12/20 13:47 +0100]:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:55:25PM +0100, Jessica Yu wrote:
+++ Peter Zijlstra [16/12/20 10:26 +0100]:
[snip]
> > PS, I originally found: in arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c: vmx_init(), it looks
> > like the line "static_branch_enable(_evmcs);" does not take
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:55:25PM +0100, Jessica Yu wrote:
> +++ Peter Zijlstra [16/12/20 10:26 +0100]:
> [snip]
> > > PS, I originally found: in arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c: vmx_init(), it looks
> > > like the line "static_branch_enable(_evmcs);" does not take effect
> > > in a v5.4-based kernel, but
+++ Peter Zijlstra [16/12/20 10:26 +0100]:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 03:54:29AM +, Dexuan Cui wrote:
PS, I originally found: in arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c: vmx_init(), it looks
like the line "static_branch_enable(_evmcs);" does not take effect
in a v5.4-based kernel, but does take effect in the
+++ Peter Zijlstra [16/12/20 10:26 +0100]:
[snip]
PS, I originally found: in arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c: vmx_init(), it looks
like the line "static_branch_enable(_evmcs);" does not take effect
in a v5.4-based kernel, but does take effect in the v5.10 kernel in the
same x86-64 virtual machine on
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:26:49AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 03:54:29AM +, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > Hi,
> > The below init_module() prints "foo: false". This is strange since
> > static_branch_enable() is called before the static_branch_unlikely().
> > This strange
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 03:54:29AM +, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> Hi,
> The below init_module() prints "foo: false". This is strange since
> static_branch_enable() is called before the static_branch_unlikely().
> This strange behavior happens to v5.10 and an old v5.4 kernel.
>
> If I remove the
Hi,
The below init_module() prints "foo: false". This is strange since
static_branch_enable() is called before the static_branch_unlikely().
This strange behavior happens to v5.10 and an old v5.4 kernel.
If I remove the "__init" marker from the init_module() function, then
I get the expected
10 matches
Mail list logo