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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48E17C433F5 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 12:24:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 70A4A6B0074; Thu, 12 May 2022 08:24:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6B9316B0075; Thu, 12 May 2022 08:24:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5CE8A6B0078; Thu, 12 May 2022 08:24:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D6106B0074 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 08:24:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2157961064 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 12:24:25 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79457008890.11.0545EE8 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) by imf22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE79C00BB for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 12:24:22 +0000 (UTC) From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1652358262; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DVZxZFuMkEfBe60LNYj65QHxhgAKYNVpBhi0MdB9lK8=; b=gBh9EUjm8OHWsyt3Bhmp8aXcBfegq7ceUs07OGjvIClwgVhSWQxueqp6gHTGX9SuSLQwF5 uw+NzDCWqyySFNdF1TO2JOrK3OwAPJK9Ib4wqoW5LVLqhznq5sjNT6Wc6IqJKWqksCNqsR +pS3EJSfxxsfeZEXoHCXjVe4gMNBgBH3jCD+XTQlTuNIuzqN7R56yhcUnIHtyX/jcqRjh4 PF9Ltjm0+fdJyO+wwId892lhnwSonWHa/mQoMzjjNrwLwg86+ICwnd+qBpOVkrZ2MXZoYG br8uqG0aCmU1f5c7SFxv7zM1RmjssdSnjg1/9jNnwY5/WljG9yaTL0JOvKBauQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1652358262; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DVZxZFuMkEfBe60LNYj65QHxhgAKYNVpBhi0MdB9lK8=; b=Psyau2D9q2q0Tphp54E/cLDjph4z3qZGCb3Hg68lQj0iavPkDB9wn7jIfzFsacapGDhvFg JRoiCrjUQ/iiCNAQ== To: Peter Zijlstra , "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , x86@kernel.org, Andrey Ryabinin , Alexander Potapenko , Dmitry Vyukov , "H . J . Lu" , Andi Kleen , Rick Edgecombe , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFCv2 04/10] x86/mm: Introduce X86_THREAD_LAM_U48 and X86_THREAD_LAM_U57 In-Reply-To: <20220511070211.GS76023@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20220511022751.65540-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220511022751.65540-6-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220511070211.GS76023@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 14:24:22 +0200 Message-ID: <87ee0zvszt.ffs@tglx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Stat-Signature: 75jcufn99r8ohok8aczbbpm3i7emap9w Authentication-Results: imf22.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020 header.b=gBh9EUjm; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020e header.b=Psyau2D9; spf=pass (imf22.hostedemail.com: domain of tglx@linutronix.de designates 193.142.43.55 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=tglx@linutronix.de; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linutronix.de X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: BDE79C00BB X-HE-Tag: 1652358262-511749 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, May 11 2022 at 09:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 05:27:45AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > >> +#define LAM_NONE 0 >> +#define LAM_U57 1 >> +#define LAM_U48 2 > >> +#define X86_THREAD_LAM_U48 0x1 >> +#define X86_THREAD_LAM_U57 0x2 > > Seriously pick an order and stick with it. I would suggest keeping the > hardware order and then you can do: > >> +static inline unsigned long lam_to_cr3(u8 lam) >> +{ > > return (lam & 0x3) << X86_CR3_LAM_U57; This "works" because the hardware ignores LAM_U48 if LAM_U57 is set, but I'd rather make that exclusive in the prctl() as setting both does not make any sense. > I'm still not liking LAM(e), I'm thikning it's going to create more > problems than it solves. Isn't that true for most new hardware features? Thanks, tglx