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;
Date:   Tue, 28 Jan 2020 21:14:15 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/asm changes for v5.6
Message-ID: <20200128201415.GA89586@gmail.com>
References: <20200128165906.GA67781@gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgm+2ac4nnprPST6CnehHXScth=A7-ayrNyhydNC+xG-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wi=otQxzhLAofWEvULLMk2X3G3zcWfUWz7e1CFz+xYs2Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wi=otQxzhLAofWEvULLMk2X3G3zcWfUWz7e1CFz+xYs2Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:51 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >         ALTERNATIVE_2 \
> >                 "cmp  $680, %rdx ; jb 3f ; cmpb %dil, %sil; je 4f", \
> >                 "movq %rdx, %rcx ; rep movsb; retq", X86_FEATURE_FSRM, \
> >                 "cmp $0x20, %rdx; jb 1f; movq %rdx, %rcx; rep movsb; retq", X86_FEATURE_ERMS
> 
> Note the UNTESTED part.
> 
> In particular, I didn't check what the priority for the alternatives
> is. Since FSRM being set always implies ERMS being set too, it may be
> that the ERMS case is always picked with the above code.
> 
> So maybe the FSRM and ERMS lines need to be switched around, and
> somebody should add a comment to the ALTERNATIVE_2 macro about the
> priority rules for feature1 vs feature2 when both are set..
> 
> IOW, testing most definitely required for that patch suggestion of mine..

Understood, thanks!

	Ingo