Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6] x86/mm: Don't disable INVLPG if "incomplete Global INVLPG flushes" is fixed by microcode or the kernel is running in a hypervisor | From | Xi Ruoyao <> | Date | Thu, 11 Apr 2024 22:48:07 +0800 |
| |
On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 07:44 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 4/11/24 03:48, Xi Ruoyao wrote: > > + /* > > + * The Intel errata claims: "this erratum does not apply in VMX > > + * non-root operation. It applies only when PCIDs are enabled > > + * and either in VMX root operation or outside VMX operation." > > + * So we are safe if we are surely running in a hypervisor. > > + */ > > When you revise this, could you please work to make this more succinct? > The Intel language on these things tends to be a bit flowery and is not > always well-suited for the kernel.
Oops, bad timing. I just sent v7 before getting this reply.
I'm not a native English speaker, so could you give some hint about how to write this comment clearly?
> Also, saying that the erratum "claims" this casts doubt on it. That's > counterproductive. I believe the current documentation is correct. My > original ce0b15d11ad8 ("x86/mm: Avoid incomplete Global INVLPG flushes") > should have considered virtualized systems immune to this issue.
Then do we need a "Fixes: ce0b15d11ad8" for the patch keeping PCID enabled for guests?
> I agree that it sounds weird. It _is_ weird that systems running under > hypervisors aren't affected. But that's all it is: a weird bug. The > documentation is correct.
Yes, these hardware issues are just weird to me...
-- Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |