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 E2C04C33C9E for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 18:47:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA0C2083E for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 18:47:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.b="OnvGup5B" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729367AbgAQSr3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 13:47:29 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:44288 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727573AbgAQSr3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 13:47:29 -0500 Received: from zn.tnic (p200300EC2F08DC0098C6A8393F59F989.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f08:dc00:98c6:a839:3f59:f989]) (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 B9B8C1EC03F6; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 19:47:27 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1579286847; 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=Y2ZrufAmDTgI9TXivlSlbPcvv98I5hvXGSkhEsQnmuk=; b=OnvGup5BQQd1djQppGREI/Xmh13GQxmcxASd90ulRJpJ4ekUQ3Uq8EUm4A9yb8Zn7BG/57 4Ggz1p7ip2pSLukVliRuFrXhHmSrDBwhREdT5DLkF3gIrRDfJOS6DJGTUJ+BqRgHCOqR6u HNyPYr6TR20k+Y/HPxAnPdXsx8lzXaQ= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 19:47:20 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Tony W Wang-oc Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, DavidWang@zhaoxin.com, CooperYan@zhaoxin.com, QiyuanWang@zhaoxin.com, HerryYang@zhaoxin.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/cpu: remove redundant cpu_detect_cache_sizes Message-ID: <20200117184720.GB31472@zn.tnic> References: <1579075257-6985-1-git-send-email-TonyWWang-oc@zhaoxin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1579075257-6985-1-git-send-email-TonyWWang-oc@zhaoxin.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 Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 04:00:57PM +0800, Tony W Wang-oc wrote: > Before call cpu_detect_cache_sizes get l2size from CPUID.80000006, > these CPUs have called init_intel_cacheinfo get l2size/l3size from > CPUID.4. Questions: * Does CPUID(4) give the same result as CPUID(80000006) on those CPUs? * cpu_detect_cache_sizes() sets c->x86_tlbsize while init_intel_cacheinfo() would set it only when it calls the former function - cpu_detect_cache_sizes() - at the end: if (!l2) cpu_detect_cache_sizes(c); Does that happen on those CPUs? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette