LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
To: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip: x86/splitlock] Documentation/x86: Add buslock.rst
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 15:36:06 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YR0o5olwUq765pS4@otcwcpicx3.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f1a30c67-2c05-5c8f-df8f-ca82f9bf89af@intel.com>

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 09:59:49AM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On 5/18/2021 10:44 PM, tip-bot2 for Fenghua Yu wrote:
> I'm wonder if using only one "split_lock_detect" parameter for those two
> features is good/correct.
> 
> In fact, split lock is just one type of bus lock. There are two types bus
> lock:
> 1) split lock, lock on WB memory across multiple cache lines;
> 2) lock on non-WB memory;
> 
> As current design, if both features are available, it only enables #AC for
> split lock either for "warn" or "fatal". Thus we cannot capture any bus lock
> due to 2) lock on non-WB memory.
> 
> Why not provide separate parameter for them? e.g., split_lock_detect and
> bus_lock_detect. Then they can be configured and enabled independently.

#AC for split lock is a model specific feature and only available on limited
(and legacy) platforms. #DB for bus lock is an architectural feature and will
replace #AC for split lock in future platforms. The platforms that support
both of them are very rare (maybe only one AFAIK). Adding two parameters makes
code and usage complex while only one platform may get benefit in reality.

Thanks.

-Fenghua

  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-18 15:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-19 21:49 [PATCH 0/4] x86/bus_lock: Set rate limit for bus lock Fenghua Yu
2021-04-19 21:49 ` [PATCH 1/4] Documentation/x86: Add buslock.rst Fenghua Yu
2021-05-18 14:39   ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-05-18 14:44   ` [tip: x86/splitlock] " tip-bot2 for Fenghua Yu
2021-08-18  1:59     ` Xiaoyao Li
2021-08-18 15:36       ` Fenghua Yu [this message]
2021-08-19  3:36         ` Xiaoyao Li
2021-04-19 21:49 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86/bus_lock: Set rate limit for bus lock Fenghua Yu
2021-05-18 14:44   ` [tip: x86/splitlock] " tip-bot2 for Fenghua Yu
2021-04-19 21:49 ` [PATCH 3/4] Documentation/admin-guide: Change doc for bus lock ratelimit Fenghua Yu
2021-05-18 14:44   ` [tip: x86/splitlock] Documentation/admin-guide: Add " tip-bot2 for Fenghua Yu
2021-04-19 21:49 ` [PATCH 4/4] Documentation/x86: Add ratelimit in buslock.rst Fenghua Yu
2021-05-18 14:44   ` [tip: x86/splitlock] " tip-bot2 for Fenghua Yu
2021-05-17 18:46 ` [PATCH 0/4] x86/bus_lock: Set rate limit for bus lock Fenghua Yu
2021-05-17 19:01   ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-05-17 19:05     ` Fenghua Yu

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=YR0o5olwUq765pS4@otcwcpicx3.sc.intel.com \
    --to=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=xiaoyao.li@intel.com \
    --subject='Re: [tip: x86/splitlock] Documentation/x86: Add buslock.rst' \
    /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

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).