From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965531AbeE2Rkn (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2018 13:40:43 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:64872 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965284AbeE2Rkm (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2018 13:40:42 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,457,1520924400"; d="scan'208";a="51544987" Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 10:40:48 -0700 From: Fenghua Yu To: Dave Hansen Cc: Fenghua Yu , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ashok Raj , Rafael Wysocki , Tony Luck , Alan Cox , Ravi V Shankar , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel , x86 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/16] x86/split_lock: Enable #AC exception for split locked accesses Message-ID: <20180529174047.GC212416@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com> References: <1527435965-202085-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com> <20180529172511.GA212416@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com> <43c11ed3-c0a6-03cb-51b5-075595f9be12@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43c11ed3-c0a6-03cb-51b5-075595f9be12@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:28:11AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 05/29/2018 10:25 AM, Fenghua Yu wrote: > > (By the way, ISE and SDM don't mention other important details, e.g. > > the fact that operand is fetched to cache before split lock is > > checked. Without the fact, it's hard to explain that only split lock > > generates bus lock in chapter 8.1.4 in SDM vol3.) > > That's a bummer. You're working with the folks that own those documents > to get that fixed up, right? Yes, I already asked them to add some missing parts in future ISE and SDM. > > > Maybe I can add "Current TEST_CTL implementation is per-core. The patches > > are supposed to work even when TEST_CTL is per-thread (or even per- > > socket) in future as well."? > > Yes, that would be a very important part of the software implementation > to mention. I'll do that in the next version. Thanks. -Fenghua