Re: [PATCH] x86/split_lock: Enumerate split lock feature on Sapphire Rapids

[Luck, Tony]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 09:50:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:37:00PM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > Hi, Thomas, Boris, Ingo,
> > 
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 02:55:34PM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > > Add Sapphire Rapids processor to CPU list to enumerate split lock
> > > feature.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> > > index c25a67a34bd3..dca069ad6671 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> > > @@ -1148,6 +1148,7 @@ static const struct x86_cpu_id split_lock_cpu_ids[] __initconst = {
> > >  	X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(ATOM_TREMONT_L,	1),
> > >  	X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(TIGERLAKE_L,		1),
> > >  	X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(TIGERLAKE,		1),
> > > +	X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(SAPPHIRERAPIDS_X,	1),
> > >  	{}
> > >  };
> > 
> > Any comment on this patch?
> 
> The only comment I have is that us needing it is ludicrous :/ What's the
> bloody point of having it 'enumerated' if you then still have to use FMS
> lists.
> 
> There's nowhere near enough cursing in the comment that goes with that
> list.

Code of conduct suggests that we avoid such language :-)

-Tony