On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 07:19:01AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/19/2018 02:54 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 04:13:20PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 07/17/2018 04:20 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >>> + } else {
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Reset __PHYSICAL_MASK.
> >>> + * Maybe needed if there's inconsistent configuation
> >>> + * between CPUs.
> >>> + */
> >>> + physical_mask = (1ULL << __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT) - 1;
> >>> + }
> >> This seems like an appropriate place for a WARN_ON(). Either that, or
> >> axe this code.
> > There's pr_err_once() above in the function.
>
> Do you mean for the (tme_activate != tme_activate_cpu0) check?
>
> But that's about double-activating this feature. This check is about an
> inconsistent configuration between two CPUs which seems totally different.
>
> Could you explain?
(tme_activate != tme_activate_cpu0) check is about inconsistent
configuration. It checks if MSR's content on the given CPU matches MSR on
CPU0.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
