Re: [RFCv1 0/6] Page Detective

2024-11-20 Thread Andi Kleen
> - Quickly identify all user processes mapping a given page. Can be done with /proc/*/pagemap today. Maybe it's not "quick" because it won't use the rmap chains, but is that a serious issue? > - Determine if and where the kernel maps the page, which is also > important given the opportunity to r

Re: [RFCv1 0/6] Page Detective

2024-11-20 Thread Andi Kleen
Pasha Tatashin writes: > Page Detective is a new kernel debugging tool that provides detailed > information about the usage and mapping of physical memory pages. > > It is often known that a particular page is corrupted, but it is hard to > extract more information about such a page from live sys

Re: [PATCH] x86/fpu: Parse comma separated list passed in clearcpuid

2019-02-21 Thread Andi Kleen
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 02:37:45PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 08:12:25AM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > Users cannot disable multiple CPU features with the kernel parameter > > clearcpuid=. For example, "clearcpuid=154 clearcpuid=227" only disables > > CPUID bit 154.

Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/speculation: Don't inherit TIF_SSBD on execve()

2018-12-19 Thread Andi Kleen
> You can always force disable SSB. In that case, all the child processes > will have SSBD on. Okay that sounds reasonable, given the below. Thanks. -Andi > > > > > Do you have a real use case where this behavior is a problem? > > > > -Andi > > Yes, we have an enterprise application partner th

Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/speculation: Don't inherit TIF_SSBD on execve()

2018-12-19 Thread Andi Kleen
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 02:09:50PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > With the default SPEC_STORE_BYPASS_SECCOMP/SPEC_STORE_BYPASS_PRCTL mode, > the TIF_SSBD bit will be inherited when a new task is fork'ed or cloned. > > As only certain class of applications (like Java) requires disabling > speculative

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] x86/idle: add halt poll support

2017-08-29 Thread Andi Kleen
Yang Zhang writes: > Some latency-intensive workload will see obviously performance > drop when running inside VM. The main reason is that the overhead > is amplified when running inside VM. The most cost i have seen is > inside idle path. You could test with https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/9/2

Re: [PATCH v10 05/12] task_isolation: support CONFIG_TASK_ISOLATION_ALL

2016-03-03 Thread Andi Kleen
> The same arguments would seem to apply to TASK_ISOLATION_ALL; > note that applications don't actually go into task isolation mode > without issuing the appropriate prctl(), so it shouldn't be too That's a fair point. If it's entirely opt-in it's probably ok. -Andi -- To unsubscribe from this li

Re: [PATCH v10 05/12] task_isolation: support CONFIG_TASK_ISOLATION_ALL

2016-03-03 Thread Andi Kleen
Chris Metcalf writes: > > +config TASK_ISOLATION_ALL > + bool "Provide task isolation on all CPUs by default (except CPU 0)" > + depends on TASK_ISOLATION > + help > + If the user doesn't pass the task_isolation boot option to > + define the range of task isolation CPUs, co