lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH V6 2/5] perf/x86/kvm: Avoid unnecessary work in guest filtering
    From
    Date


    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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-02-04 16:57    [W:2.715 / U:0.160 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site