[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1415038137.10958.1.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 11:08:57 -0700
From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@...onical.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Yigal Korman <yigal@...xistor.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] x86, mm, pat: Set WT to PA7 slot of PAT MSR
On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 19:15 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 18:14 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > >> > + } else {
> > >> > + /*
> > >> > + * PAT full support. WT is set to slot 7, which minimizes
> > >> > + * the risk of using the PAT bit as slot 3 is UC and is
> > >> > + * currently unused. Slot 4 should remain as reserved.
> > >>
> > >> This comment makes no sense. What minimizes which risk and what has
> > >> this to do with slot 3 and slot 4?
> > >
> > > This is for precaution. Since the patch enables the PAT bit the first
> > > time, it was suggested that we keep slot 4 reserved and set it to WB.
> > > The PAT bit still has no effect to slot 0/1/2 (WB/WC/UC-) after this
> > > patch. Slot 7 is the safest slot since slot 3 (UC) is unused today.
> > >
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/4/691
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/5/394
> > >
> >
> > I would clarify the comment, since this really has nothing to do with
> > slot 3 being unused. How about:
> >
> > We put WT in slot 7 to improve robustness in the presence of errata
> > that might cause the high PAT bit to be ignored. This way a buggy
> > slot 7 access will hit slot 3, and slot 3 is UC, so at worst we lose
> > performance without causing a correctness issue. Pentium 4 erratum
> > N46 is an example of such an erratum, although we try not to use PAT
> > at all on affected CPUs.
>
> Indeed. That makes a lot more sense.
>
> > >> > + *
> > >> > + * PTE encoding used in Linux:
> > >> > + * PAT
> > >> > + * |PCD
> > >> > + * ||PWT PAT
> > >> > + * ||| slot
> > >> > + * 000 0 WB : _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_WB
> > >> > + * 001 1 WC : _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_WC
> > >> > + * 010 2 UC-: _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_UC_MINUS
> > >> > + * 011 3 UC : _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_UC
> > >> > + * 100 4 <reserved>
> > >> > + * 101 5 <reserved>
> > >> > + * 110 6 <reserved>
> > >>
> > >> Well, they are still mapped to WB/WC/UC_MINUS ....
> > >
> > > Right, the reserved slots are also initialized with their safe values.
> > > However, the macros _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_XXX only refer to the slots
> > > specified above.
>
> Then the table should reflect this, i.e.: reserved, but mapped to XX
>
> And a comment below that explaining WHY we map the reserved slots.
Yes, I will update the table and add a comment.
Thanks,
-Toshi
--
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