Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V6 2/5] perf/x86/kvm: Avoid unnecessary work in guest filtering | From | "Liang, Kan" <> | Date | Mon, 4 Feb 2019 10:57:32 -0500 |
| |
On 2/4/2019 10:44 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 04:38:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> +static const struct x86_cpu_desc isolation_ucodes[] = { >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 9, 0x0000004e), >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 10, 0x0000004e), >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 11, 0x0000004e), >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 12, 0x0000004e), > >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 10, 0x0000004e), >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 11, 0x0000004e), >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 12, 0x0000004e), >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 13, 0x0000004e), > > Do we want a special stepping (0 / -1) to be able to denote 'all' ? >
Something like as below? #define X86_STEPPING_ANY 0xff
As my understanding, the microcode version for each stepping is independent and irrelevant. The 0x0000004e should be just coincidence. If so, I don't think X86_STEPPING_ANY is very useful.
Andi, if I'm wrong please correct me.
Thanks, Kan
| |