Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <cc8d0101-73b9-b286-a7a7-e9305cdc1bd9@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:17:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/split_lock: Restore warn mode (and add a new one) to
 avoid userspace regression
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@igalia.com>, tony.luck@intel.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        hpa@zytor.com, luto@kernel.org, kernel-dev@igalia.com,
        kernel@gpiccoli.net, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Joshua Ashton <joshua@froggi.es>,
        Paul Gofman <pgofman@codeweavers.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>,
        Pierre-Loup Griffais <pgriffais@valvesoftware.com>,
        Melissa Wen <mwen@igalia.com>
References: <20220928142109.150263-1-gpiccoli@igalia.com>
 <24f31510-5b33-ada5-9f0e-117420403e8c@intel.com>
 <1c742ae1-98cb-a5c1-ba3f-5e79b8861f0b@igalia.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <1c742ae1-98cb-a5c1-ba3f-5e79b8861f0b@igalia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/29/22 07:57, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> On 28/09/2022 18:50, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> [...]
>> It boils down to either:
>>  * The misery is good and we keep it as-is, or
>>  * The misery is bad and we kill it
>>
>> My gut says we should keep the warnings and kill the misery.  The folks
>> who are going to be able to fix the issues are probably also the ones
>> looking at dmesg and don't need the extra hint from the misery.  The
>> folks running Windows games don't look at dmesg and just want to play
>> their game without misery.
>>
> Hi Dave, thanks for your response. I really appreciated your reasoning,
> and I think it's a good argument. In the end, adding misery would harm
> the users that are unlikely to be able to fix (or at least, fix quickly)
> the split lock situation, like games or legacy/proprietary code.
> 
> I have a revert removing the misery ready and tested, let me know if I
> should submit it.

I'm a bit of a late arrival to the split lock party, so I'm a bit
hesitant to merge any changes immediately.

How about we give it a few weeks and see if the current behavior impacts
anyone else?  Maybe the best route will be more clear then.