On 3/10/22 03:15, Bharata B Rao wrote:> > This patchset builds on that prctl() extension and adds support > for AMD UAI. AMD implementation is kept separate as equivalent > Intel LAM implementation is likely to be different due to different > bit positions and tag width. Please don't keep the implementations separate. We'll have one x86 implementation of address bit masking. Both the Intel and AMD implementations will feed into a shared implementation. Something _like_ the cc_set_mask() interface where both implementations do their detection and then call into common code to say how many bits are being ignored. A good litmus test for this is how many vendor-specific checks there are in common code. If there are a lot of them, it's not a good sign for the design. I'd also highly suggest going over Kirill's patch set in detail. There are things like this: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210205151631.43511-10-kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ which seem pretty sane to me but which are (I think) missing in this set. I don't know if we can get there but, in an ideal world, this would be series with, say 7 patches. Patches 1-5 are generic enabling. Patch 6 is tiny and does detection and enabling for UAI. Patch 7 does the same for LAM. All the patches in the series are acked from LAM and UAI folks.
