lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv5 08/19] x86/mm: Introduce variables to store number, shift and mask of KeyIDs
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 03:40:41PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 03:18:03PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 02:37:35PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 04:19:10PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > > > > > > } else {
> > > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > > * Reset __PHYSICAL_MASK.
> > > > > > > > @@ -591,6 +592,9 @@ static void detect_tme(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > > > > > > > * between CPUs.
> > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > physical_mask = (1ULL << __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT) - 1;
> > > > > > > > + mktme_keyid_mask = 0;
> > > > > > > > + mktme_keyid_shift = 0;
> > > > > > > > + mktme_nr_keyids = 0;
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Should be unnecessary. These are zeroed by the compiler.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No. detect_tme() called for each CPU in the system.
> > > > >
> > > > > And then the variables are cleared out while other CPUs can access them?
> > > > > How is that supposed to work?
> > > >
> > > > This code path only matter in patalogical case: when MKTME configuation is
> > > > inconsitent between CPUs. Basically if BIOS screwed things up we disable
> > > > MKTME.
> > >
> > > I still don't see how that's supposed to work.
> > >
> > > When the inconsistent CPU is brought up _AFTER_ MKTME is enabled, then how
> > > does clearing the variables help? It does not magically make all the other
> > > stuff go away.
> >
> > We don't actually enable MKTME in kernel. BIOS does. Kernel makes choose
> > to use it or not. Current design targeted to be used by userspace.
> > So until init we don't have any other stuff to go away. We can just
> > pretend that MKTME was never there.
>
> Hotplug is not guaranteed to happen _BEFORE_ init. Think about physical
> hotplug.

Ouch. I didn't think about this. :/

In this case I don't see how to handle the situation properly.
Is it okay to WARN() && pray()?

--
Kirill A. Shutemov

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-20 14:56    [W:0.091 / U:0.996 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site