From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
peterz@infradead.org, x86@kernel.org, eranian@google.com,
kan.liang@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/cpufeature: Add facility to match microcode revisions
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:20:47 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810210954440.1651@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181020143857.GC27951@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Andi,
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 10:19:37AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > There is no point to return the pointer because it's not a compound
> > structure. If you want to provide the possibility to use the index then
> > return the index and an error code if it does not match.
>
> It will be useful with the driver_data pointer, which you short sightedly
> forced me to remove, and likely will need to be readded at some point
> anyways if this gets more widely used.
It's good and established practice not to add functionality on a 'might be
used' basis. If you'd provide at least one or two patches which demonstrate
how that is useful then that would be convincing.
> At least with the pointer not all callers will need to be changed then.
It doesn't need to be changed at all, when done correctly.
So lets walk through that again:
1) x86_match_microcode() is a misnomer because it's not as the name
suggests a match function. It compares whether the micro code revision
is greater or equal the minimal required micro code revision for the
current CPU.
2) None of the existing implementations needs a pointer return value,
neither does your use case at hand.
3) If this should be extended to a generic cpu id matching facility, then
it can be very well designed so. See below.
Step 1:
struct x86_cpu_check {
u8 vendor;
u8 family;
u8 model;
u8 stepping;
};
struct x86_cpu_check *x86_match_cpu(struct x86_cpu_check *table)
{
// Find matching vendor, family, model, stepping entry
... {
return entry;
}
return NULL;
}
Genuine CPU match function, which can be extended by extending the data
structure.
Step 2:
struct x86_cpu_check {
u8 vendor;
u8 family;
u8 model;
u8 stepping;
u32 microcode_rev;
};
bool x86_cpu_has_min_microcode(struct x86_cpu_check *table)
{
struct x86_cpu_check *res = x86_match_cpu(table);
if (!res)
return false;
return res->microcode_revision >= boot_cpu_data.microcode;
}
Step 3:
struct x86_cpu_check {
u8 vendor;
u8 family;
u8 model;
u8 stepping;
union {
u32 microcode_rev;
void *driver_data;
}
};
Can be used with x86_match_cpu() for all non microcode based matching.
So if you really need something which checks the microcode and provides the
pointer, then it's easy enough to do:
Step 4:
struct x86_cpu_check {
u8 vendor;
u8 family;
u8 model;
u8 stepping;
u32 microcode_rev;
void *driver_data;
};
struct x86_cpu_check *x86_check_min_microcode(struct x86_cpu_check *table)
{
struct x86_cpu_check *res = x86_match_cpu(table);
if (!res || res->microcode_rev < boot_cpu_data.microcode)
return NULL;
return res;
}
static inline bool x86_cpu_has_min_microcode(struct x86_cpu_check *table)
{
return !!x86_check_min_microcode(table);
}
None of these steps requires to change a call site or a table.
But probably I'm too short sighted and missing something crucial. Looking
forward for enlightment.
> Also it's symmetric with how the PCI and USB and the existing x86 match
> discovery interfaces work.
And the point is? That we need to keep everything as we've done it 20 years
ago?
> > > > VENDOR_INTEL = 0, so this check is obscure to begin with. Either you chose
> > > > a explicit condition to put at the end of the table, e.g. vendor = U8_MAX
> > > > or you hand in the array size to the function.
> > >
> > > That would both be awkward. It's the same as match_cpu, and 0 terminators
> > > are standard practice in practical all similar code. I removed
> > > the or with the family.
> >
> > That's debatable because it's more easy to miss the terminator than getting
> > the ARRAY_SIZE() argument wrong. But it doesn't matter much.
>
> Ok then please apply it.
Sure, once this argument is settled and all review comments are addressed.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-21 10:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-10 16:26 [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/cpufeature: Add facility to match microcode revisions Andi Kleen
2018-10-10 16:26 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] perf/x86/kvm: Avoid unnecessary work in guest filtering Andi Kleen
2018-10-10 16:37 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/cpufeature: Add facility to match microcode revisions Borislav Petkov
2018-10-11 11:43 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2018-10-17 9:59 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-10-19 23:47 ` Andi Kleen
2018-10-20 8:19 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-10-20 14:38 ` Andi Kleen
2018-10-21 10:20 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2018-10-21 15:13 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-10-25 23:23 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.21.1810210954440.1651@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=kan.liang@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).