[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50D24C83.3080906@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:23:47 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/microcode] x86/microcode_intel_early.c: Early update
ucode on Intel's CPU
On 12/19/2012 02:55 PM, Jacob Shin wrote:
>
> Well, really the problem is with any memory hole above 4GB that is too
> big to be covered by variable range MTRRs as UC. Because the kernel
> use to just simply do init_memory_mapping for 4GB ~ top of memory,
> any memory hole above 4GB are marked as WB in PATs.
>
> How is this handled in Intel architecture? If there are memory holes
> that are too big to be covered by variable range MTRRs as UC, are
> there other MTRR like CPU registers that the BIOS programs?
>
Intel CPUs don't have the TOM augmentation to the MTRR mechanism, and so
MTRRs need to explicitly enable caching of memory rather than the other
way around.
-hpa
--
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