Received: by 10.223.185.116 with SMTP id b49csp881963wrg; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:20:03 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227am7iYhjMl1lRNX7VfQgdz9951tmgnls2QeLIXzg3fUvwRV35VKqnCy6fUywh/8ggVgQpv X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bcc6:: with SMTP id o6-v6mr334295pls.16.1519147203345; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:20:03 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1519147203; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=G0SLBSNP6oAMrbLj/vpIu6x8lp6Jw5jjg/A7RMSViv031zh3LbifJv/bjnL1TnRRby 32BDRMCuLIP2eVJJHI5/GjmIod1KLchg7ZBCItbHcNbNzcluMijCJ4/ZNjLhxhEAv3/b eLKNfYlJIcKRxM8B1RBjWgx9GxKMLIbKcW2WAHfw9gAo00r5w25mcoV39Y04PG/CMWHV vz8Rcxoti0+0DlcbG0iQiO8EzdW8xPZs2zGjfnpVCGHASbdaHSb6AkRUTjRZoAWFwWTA 07Jt0eaakCKWsAI2u2KzJH3tyJZaY2SYek5fROOapMvOnN1JJL8B1H0/Ij9XxOcNkbmY Gbqw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:user-agent:references :message-id:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:date :arc-authentication-results; bh=x9n9JpQKA8eYTcSmOL7BLqhjM+Zpc0fa5qXSxo/ZMBc=; b=DGxY7AU5EguBiyaKIkU0XDCjr4tWQVxaOdXPvKAy1G9AggWmVNfKZ/wJtiuMJgTQ+Z zvyjbbKvmgRBVFHzVcpJim4FxyB4YhUlsx5lO8Uug3iqS7d7hVlxWVV/n5tkv/jVPPMk veM1z6vYj6hnIBBrZHuAnyZrl8GoIKIxP1SG2L/OgyFYL/umXN/yhE9lzH/snY2WwkEi hJs77vhH6gwaltr0pEMFvhWFtkZ0RlDGDsstNRctza1RLgan/lmxYori1sIjtKXh+jo9 VcZvsMG5dowBrEXl8XfypUbiBHoADr2zCEhivpbdXmpezXugdUVXKtb2FHl2SCKj7lYG aHmQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f11si744411pgp.626.2018.02.20.09.19.48; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753297AbeBTRS7 (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:18:59 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:33533 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752823AbeBTRS6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:18:58 -0500 Received: from [37.80.9.43] by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1eoBUy-0007ty-Uc; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 18:14:37 +0100 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 18:18:12 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Reinette Chatre cc: fenghua.yu@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, gavin.hindman@intel.com, vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 11/22] x86/intel_rdt: Associate pseudo-locked regions with its domain In-Reply-To: <9551bc69-1183-cc36-7ed9-5b949ce924cc@intel.com> Message-ID: References: <216ad1ef8314dc578a900ff8b06248464f5aa2ee.1518443616.git.reinette.chatre@intel.com> <7bd1f8e8-116f-bdb2-23d2-a94f9a21e028@intel.com> <0efce774-57a8-40fa-7b8a-6e57e496bb37@intel.com> <9551bc69-1183-cc36-7ed9-5b949ce924cc@intel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote: > On 2/20/2018 2:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote: > >> In addition to the above research from my side I also followed up with > >> the CPU architects directly to question the usage of these instructions > >> instead of wbinvd. > > > > What was their answer? This really wants a proper explanation and not just > > experimentation results as it makes absolutely no sense at all. > > I always prefer to provide detailed answers but here I find myself at > the threshold where I may end up sharing information not publicly known. > This cannot be the first time you find yourself in this situation. How > do you prefer to proceed? Well, if it's secret sauce we'll have to accept it. Though it really does not improve the confidence in all those mechanisms .... Thanks, tglx