lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [v3 1/1] x86/cpufeatures: Implement Predictive Store Forwarding control.
From
Date


On 4/29/2021 9:25 AM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 4/29/21 9:01 AM, Saripalli, RK wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/29/2021 12:38 AM, Reiji Watanabe wrote:
>>>> + if (!strcmp(str, "off")) {
>>>> + set_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_MSR_SPEC_CTRL);
>>>> + x86_spec_ctrl_base |= SPEC_CTRL_PSFD;
>>>> + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, x86_spec_ctrl_base);
>>>
>>> My previous suggestion about updating MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL meant
>>> something like:
>>>
>>> rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, current);
>>> wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, current | SPEC_CTRL_PSFD);
>>>
>>> And this is to keep the behavior of code below check_bugs().
>>> (Or do you intentionally change it due to some reason ?)
>>> BTW, x86_spec_ctrl_base, which is updated in psf_cmdline(),
>>> would be overwritten by check_bugs() anyway as follows.
>>> ---
>>
>> Since psf_cmdline() directly writes to the MSR itself (and it only does this)
>> if the feature is available (per CPUID), check_bugs() should be ok.
>>
>> My patch for now does not depend on the value of x86_spec_ctrl_base after psf_cmdline()
>> finishes execution.
>
> Reiji is correct. What if BIOS has set some other bits in SPEC_CTRL (now
> or in the future) as part of setup. You will effectively be zeroing them
> out. The correct method is as he has documented, by reading the MSR,
> or'ing in the PSFD bit and writing the MSR.

Yes, I agree with his analysis and fixing it.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>>
>>> void __init check_bugs(void)
>>> {
>>> <...>
>>> /*
>>> * Read the SPEC_CTRL MSR to account for reserved bits which may
>>> * have unknown values. AMD64_LS_CFG MSR is cached in the early AMD
>>> * init code as it is not enumerated and depends on the family.
>>> */
>>> if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_MSR_SPEC_CTRL))
>>> rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, x86_spec_ctrl_base);
>>> <...>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>> + setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_PSFD);
>>>
>>> Does X86_FEATURE_PSFD need to be cleared for the 'off' case ?
>>> Do you want to remove "psfd" from /proc/cpuinfo
>>> when PSFD is enabled ? (not when PSFD is disabled ?)
>>>
>>>
>> No, it should not be cleared, I agree.
>> But I did test with KVM (with my patch that is not here) and I do not see
>> issues (meaning user space guest in QEMU is seeing PSF CPUID guest capability)
>>
>> I see no reason to clear this feature and I will submit a new patch with this and other changes.
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Reiji
>>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-29 16:33    [W:0.063 / U:3.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site