From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Move away from /dev/cpu/*/msr
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:12:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87inx3bm4f.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160615100029.GB32588@pd.tnic> (Borislav Petkov's message of "Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:00:29 +0200")
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> writes:
> Comments are, as always, appreciated.
Seems like a waste of kernel code to me. The MSR interface works
perfectly fine. There are potentially hundreds of useful MSRs,
are you going to add new sysfs for each of them?
Even the more obscure ones can be very useful for debugging
and monitoring.
Most MSRs are model specific so this would end up with tons
of switch (x86_model) ... which are always difficult to maintain
and need to be updated all the time when new CPUs come out.
This will likely generate a really large ongoing number of patches,
and to solve what problem exactly?
The whole thing doesn't make any sense to me.
It's just a waste of code, maintainer time, patch review
capacity, which all could be far more usefully employed
to do something that actually solves real problems.
-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-20 21:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-15 10:00 [RFC PATCH] x86: Move away from /dev/cpu/*/msr Borislav Petkov
2016-06-15 10:22 ` chenyu
2016-06-15 10:36 ` Borislav Petkov
2016-06-15 14:00 ` Borislav Petkov
2016-06-15 16:41 ` Len Brown
2016-06-15 16:56 ` Borislav Petkov
2016-06-15 17:21 ` Len Brown
2016-06-15 17:39 ` Borislav Petkov
2016-06-15 17:42 ` Len Brown
2016-06-15 17:52 ` Borislav Petkov
2016-06-20 21:12 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87inx3bm4f.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com \
--to=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kan.liang@intel.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=trenn@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).