From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@it.uu.se>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 8/9] F00F bug fixup for i386 - use conditional calls
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 21:13:09 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070601011309.GB4626@Krystal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070531174355.544e7588.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
* Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org) wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 02:14:53 +0200 (MEST)
> Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@it.uu.se> wrote:
>
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > > * Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Use the faster conditional calls for F00F bug handling in do_page_fault.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess this means that CONDCALL will be enabled on pretty much all i386,
> > > > > in which case making the whole feature Kconfigurable is starting to look
> > > > > marginal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps a better approach would have to made this change dependent upon
> > > > > CONDCALL, rather than forcing it on.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean making X86_F00F_BUG depend on COND_CALL instead of selecting
> > > > it ?
> > >
> > > yup
> >
> > X86_F00F_BUG needs to be enabled in all kernels capable of booting on
> > P5 class machines, whether or not some obscure CONFIG_COND_CALL thingy
> > is enabled or not. X86_F00F_BUG is not some optional optimisation, it's
> > an essential workaround for a serious hardware bug.
> >
> > Therefore it seems select rather than depend is called for.
>
> Nope.
>
> CONFIG_COND_CALL=n -> do f00f handling the present way
> CONFIG_COND_CALL=y -> do f00f handling the new, fast-n-fancy way
>
>
> Because I don't think everyone will want to drag all this cond_call stuff
> into their kernel just for slightly faster f00f handling.
>
Then I should probably leave the redundant
if (boot_cpu_data.f00f_bug)
test in do_f00f_workaround so that configuration where cond_calls are
not enabled still behave the same way as before. The redundant test will
make the case when cond calls are present a little slower, but we still
have the improvement when the architecture does not need the workaround.
I could also wrap this test in a #ifndef CONFIG_COND_CALL, but it seems
ugly.
Also, since the default is not to set the CF_STATIC_ENABLE flag, the
workaround won't be compiled in the kernel if the conditional calls are
configured out.
The question that arises is : what should be the default behavior of a
cond_call when the cond_calls are configured out? Active, active only
if the CF_STATIC_ENABLE flags is set or inactive?
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-01 1:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-01 0:14 [patch 8/9] F00F bug fixup for i386 - use conditional calls Mikael Pettersson
2007-06-01 0:43 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-01 1:13 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-05-30 14:00 [patch 0/9] Conditional Calls - for 2.6.22-rc2-mm1 Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-05-30 14:00 ` [patch 8/9] F00F bug fixup for i386 - use conditional calls Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-05-30 20:33 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-31 21:07 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-05-31 21:21 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-31 21:38 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-05-29 18:33 [patch 0/9] Conditional Calls Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-05-29 18:34 ` [patch 8/9] F00F bug fixup for i386 - use conditional calls Mathieu Desnoyers
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=20070601011309.GB4626@Krystal \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikpe@it.uu.se \
/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