public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.

  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