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: <7cdc2103-c6d4-e1b6-9804-6739112eee4d@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:10:05 -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:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@amd.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lewis.Carroll@amd.com,
        Mario.Limonciello@amd.com, gautham.shenoy@amd.com,
        Ananth.Narayan@amd.com, bharata@amd.com, len.brown@intel.com,
        x86@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        chang.seok.bae@intel.com, keescook@chromium.org, metze@samba.org,
        zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com, mark.rutland@arm.com
References: <20220405130021.557880-1-wyes.karny@amd.com>
 <YkxNFyXqC12nXyfM@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Prefer MWAIT over HALT on AMD processors
In-Reply-To: <YkxNFyXqC12nXyfM@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/5/22 07:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 06:30:21PM +0530, Wyes Karny wrote:
>> +static inline bool early_mwait_supported(const struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>> +{
>> +	if (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
>> +		return true;
>> +
>> +	if (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD && cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_ZEN))
> What about Hygon? For some reason you guys don't co-ordinate and we end
> up getting endless 'make-same' patches, sometimes separated by years :/

Believe it or not Hygon seems to work OK with this because:

> static void init_hygon(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> {
...
>         set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_ZEN);

I do worry a bit though that using X86_FEATURE_ZEN is going to bite us
long-term.  It currently claims to be set for "family 0x17 or above":

> #define X86_FEATURE_ZEN                 ( 7*32+28) /* "" CPU is AMD family 0x17 or above (Zen) */

But then it goes and gets used in side-channel defense:

>         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?