From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA61C433FF for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 15:57:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206F12070D for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 15:57:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.b="T2GiLCQi" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387486AbfHFP5W (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Aug 2019 11:57:22 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:37798 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726877AbfHFP5W (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Aug 2019 11:57:22 -0400 Received: from zn.tnic (p200300EC2F0DA000B4A7A08B15BB062F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f0d:a000:b4a7:a08b:15bb:62f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 38BEA1EC0C31; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:57:21 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1565107041; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=MYkGzGBuQSIWtSoa+slPGOLaQ8BEFqSf3UAwSnHf9G4=; b=T2GiLCQi8RmwrBEmQAGcFFplqm0t62rzP3MRUBSH59lq516QK1GaGzPqsByRGY3AYfwDvy GNPmcPI29QX8FXMfCV2yH4xW5sj36FMQ6GGPVUDNOCzZIQs0zuPdKBsPbioaBwXakaRQe2 47oo9UqkOcgyX0okXiDPbnuWCWGHflA= Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:57:16 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Reinette Chatre Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, fenghua.yu@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, kuo-lang.tseng@intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 01/10] x86/CPU: Expose if cache is inclusive of lower level caches Message-ID: <20190806155716.GE25897@zn.tnic> References: <6c78593207224014d6a9d43698a3d1a0b3ccf2b6.1564504901.git.reinette.chatre@intel.com> <20190802180352.GE30661@zn.tnic> <20190803094423.GA2100@zn.tnic> <122b005a-46b1-2b1e-45a8-7f92a5dba2d9@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <122b005a-46b1-2b1e-45a8-7f92a5dba2d9@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 10:57:04AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > What do you think? Actually, I was thinking about something a lot simpler: something along the lines of adding the CPUID check in a helper function which rdt_pseudo_lock_init() calls. If the cache is not inclusive - and my guess is it would suffice to check any cache but I'd prefer you correct me on that - you simply return error and rdt_pseudo_lock_init() returns early without doing any futher init. How does that sound? Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.