lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 09/11] x86, fpu: correct and check XSAVE xstate size calculations
On 08/27/2015 09:54 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> wrote:
>
>> +static int xfeature_is_supervisor(int xfeature_nr)
>> +{
>> + /*
>> + * We currently do not suport supervisor states, but if
>> + * we did, we could find out like this.
>> + *
>> + * SDM says: If state component i is a user state component,
>> + * ECX[0] return 0; if state component i is a supervisor
>> + * state component, ECX[0] returns 1.
>> + u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
>> + cpuid_count(XSTATE_CPUID, xfeature_nr, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
>> + return !!(ecx & 1);
>> + */
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> So if this CPUID is documented to work, why not use it to sanity check things?
>
> I.e. do something like:
>
> u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
>
> cpuid_count(XSTATE_CPUID, xfeature_nr, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
>
> /* Linux doesn't support supervisor states (yet): */
> WARN_ON_ONCE(ecx & 1);
>
> return 0;
>
> That would give us a gentle way to double check our assumptions here.

Actually, the newest state that you will see in the wild is for
Processor Trace, and it _is_ a supervisor state. However, we don't use
it in Linux for our Processor Trace support, and Andi says we probably
never will.

So we probably shouldn't warn on it.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-08-28 17:01    [W:0.129 / U:1.664 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site