From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] x86/cpufeature: Remove unused and seldomly used cpu_has_xx macros
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:23:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151118182304.GG4138@pd.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151110123000.GA20227@gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 01:30:00PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>
> > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> >
> > Those are stupid and code should use static_cpu_has_safe() anyway. Kill
> > the least used and unused ones.
>
> So cpufeature.h doesn't really do a good job of explaining what the difference is
> between all these variants:
How's that for starters?
---
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
index 27ab2e7d14c4..a9a8313e278e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
@@ -351,6 +351,10 @@ extern const char * const x86_bug_flags[NBUGINTS*32];
(((bit)>>5)==8 && (1UL<<((bit)&31) & DISABLED_MASK8)) || \
(((bit)>>5)==9 && (1UL<<((bit)&31) & DISABLED_MASK9)) )
+/*
+ * Test whether the CPU represented by descriptor @c has the feature bit @bit
+ * set.
+ */
#define cpu_has(c, bit) \
(__builtin_constant_p(bit) && REQUIRED_MASK_BIT_SET(bit) ? 1 : \
test_cpu_cap(c, bit))
@@ -416,11 +420,6 @@ extern const char * const x86_bug_flags[NBUGINTS*32];
extern void warn_pre_alternatives(void);
extern bool __static_cpu_has_safe(u16 bit);
-/*
- * Static testing of CPU features. Used the same as boot_cpu_has().
- * These are only valid after alternatives have run, but will statically
- * patch the target code for additional performance.
- */
static __always_inline __pure bool __static_cpu_has(u16 bit)
{
#ifdef CC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO
@@ -495,6 +494,18 @@ static __always_inline __pure bool __static_cpu_has(u16 bit)
#endif /* CC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO */
}
+/*
+ * Test whether the boot CPU has feature bit @bit enabled.
+ *
+ * This is static testing of CPU features. It is used in the same manner as
+ * boot_cpu_has(). It is differs from the previous one in that the alternatives
+ * infrastructure will statically patch the code where the test is performed for
+ * additional performance.
+ *
+ * However, results from that macro are only valid after the alternatives have
+ * run and not before that. IOW, you want static_cpu_has_safe() instead, see
+ * below.
+ */
#define static_cpu_has(bit) \
( \
__builtin_constant_p(boot_cpu_has(bit)) ? \
@@ -580,6 +591,11 @@ static __always_inline __pure bool _static_cpu_has_safe(u16 bit)
#endif /* CC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO */
}
+/*
+ * Like static_cpu_has() above but it works even before the alternatives have
+ * run by falling back to boot_cpu_has(). You should use that macro for all your
+ * CPU feature bit testing needs.
+ */
#define static_cpu_has_safe(bit) \
( \
__builtin_constant_p(boot_cpu_has(bit)) ? \
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-18 18:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-10 11:48 [RFC PATCH 0/3] x86/cpufeature: Cleanup stuff Borislav Petkov
2015-11-10 11:48 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] x86/cpufeature: Move some of the scattered feature bits to x86_capability Borislav Petkov
2015-11-10 11:48 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] x86/cpufeature: Cleanup get_cpu_cap() Borislav Petkov
2015-11-10 11:48 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] x86/cpufeature: Remove unused and seldomly used cpu_has_xx macros Borislav Petkov
2015-11-10 11:57 ` David Sterba
2015-11-10 12:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-11-10 12:37 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-11-18 18:23 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2015-11-24 13:05 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-11-24 22:42 ` Josh Triplett
2015-11-25 0:10 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-11-25 2:58 ` Josh Triplett
2015-11-27 13:52 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-11-27 18:04 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-11-27 20:13 ` Josh Triplett
2015-11-27 20:23 ` Borislav Petkov
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=20151118182304.GG4138@pd.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=jbacik@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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