Hi Michael, On 03/13/2018 08:39 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
I agree; the 'Using fallback displacement flush' message is misleading (is the system slower/fallback or not? Ô_o)
That message is actually just wrong. It still prints that even if enable=false. So we should change all those messages, perhaps: pr_info("rfi-flush: fallback displacement flush available\n"); pr_info("rfi-flush: ori type flush available\n"); pr_info("rfi-flush: mttrig type flush available\n");
So I wrote something with a new function parameter to force the init of the fallback flush area (true in pseries, false in powernv). Not that contained, but it seemed to convey the intent here in a clear way. That's v2, just sent.
OK thanks. I don't really like it :D - sorry!
No worries :) fair enough. Well, I didn't like it much, either, TBH.
It's a lot of plumbing of that bool just to avoid the message, whereas I think we could just change the message like above.
Yup. And what you think about a more descriptive confirmation of what flush instructions/methods are _actually_ being used? Currently and w/ your suggestion aobve, all that is known is what is _available_, not what has gone in (or out, in the disable case) the nop slots. cheers, mauricio