Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <5873a444-bb32-f0d5-27f1-173f469baf21@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:47:20 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@amd.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Karny, Wyes" <Wyes.Karny@amd.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Carroll, Lewis" <Lewis.Carroll@amd.com>,
        "Shenoy, Gautham Ranjal" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
        "Narayan, Ananth" <Ananth.Narayan@amd.com>,
        "Rao, Bharata Bhasker" <bharata@amd.com>,
        "len.brown@intel.com" <len.brown@intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "chang.seok.bae@intel.com" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>,
        "keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "metze@samba.org" <metze@samba.org>,
        "zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com" <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>,
        "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>
References: <20220405130021.557880-1-wyes.karny@amd.com>
 <YkxNFyXqC12nXyfM@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <7cdc2103-c6d4-e1b6-9804-6739112eee4d@intel.com>
 <BL1PR12MB515745615F4C92627033CD5BE2E49@BL1PR12MB5157.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Prefer MWAIT over HALT on AMD processors
In-Reply-To: <BL1PR12MB515745615F4C92627033CD5BE2E49@BL1PR12MB5157.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/5/22 08:34, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
>>>         if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ZEN)) {
>>>                 msr |= ssbd_tif_to_amd_ls_cfg(tifn);
>>>                 wrmsrl(MSR_AMD64_LS_CFG, msr);
>>>                 return;
>>>         }
>> This seem _bit_ at odds with the commit message (and the AMD SSBD
>> whitepaper):
>>
>>>     Add the necessary synchronization logic for AMD family 17H.
>> So, is X86_FEATURE_ZEN for family==0x17, or family>=0x17?
> There are Zen family CPUs and APUs from family 0x19.  Perhaps at the
> time of the whitepaper there weren't yet though.

Is this a gap in the documentation, then?  Is there some documentation
of the availability of SSBD mitigations on family 0x19?

Anyway, back to MWAIT...  It would be really great to include the
assumptions about what X86_FEATURE_ZEN means in the context of this
patch.  Does this patch *really* mean "Zen microarchitecture" only?