[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200910132329.05152.thomas.schlichter@web.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:29:05 +0200
From: Thomas Schlichter <thomas.schlichter@....de>
To: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
"Robert Hancock" <hancockrwd@...il.com>,
"Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" <hmh@....eng.br>,
"Suresh Siddha" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"Venkatesh Pallipadi" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
"Tejun Heo" <tj@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
"Yinghai Lu" <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org,
"Thomas Hellstrom" <thellstrom@...are.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch] use MTRR for write combining if PAT is not available
Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Thomas Schlichter <thomas.schlichter@....de> 12.10.09 20:32 >>>
> >+ if (!pat_enabled) {
> >+ void __iomem *ret = ioremap_nocache(phys_addr, size);
> >+ if (ret)
> >+ mtrr_add(phys_addr, size, MTRR_TYPE_WRCOMB, false);
>
> This won't work if phys_addr or size aren't page aligned, or if size isn't
> a power of two.
No, at least the comments in mtrr_add and mtrr_check state that it is just
required that phys_addr and size are multiple of PAGE_SIZE. And I'm not sure
if it is always safe to round these up/down to the next PAGE boundary. If it
is not, maybe it is better to fail...
> >+ if (!pat_enabled) {
> >+ ret = set_memory_uc(addr, numpages);
> >+ if (!ret)
> >+ mtrr_add(__pa(addr), numpages * PAGE_SIZE,
> >+ MTRR_TYPE_WRCOMB, false);
>
> Similarly, this requires numpages to be a power of two.
Same as above.
> I think user mode code handles this by splitting the request and trying to
> establish as many entries as possible (and those as big as possible).
Seems not required here...
> Also, in all cases you pass 'false' for the 'increment' parameter, in order
> to avoid having to tear down the established entries. While this may be
> reasonable for kernel initiated mappings, I don't think that's acceptable
> for such originating from user mode.
Well, therefore I would have to remember which mmap successfully set up which
MTRR entries. And it must be ensured that for each mmap there always is a
munmap. If this is indeed always ensured, and if it's worth to maintain the
required data, I'd be happy to add a corresponding mtrr_del there.
Kind regards,
Thomas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists