[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150512163148.GH3497@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 18:31:48 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dave.hansen@...el.com,
Elliott@...com, pebolle@...cali.nl
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] mtrr, mm, x86: Enhance MTRR checks for KVA huge
page mapping
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 08:30:30AM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> MTRR_TYPE_INVALID means MTRRs disabled. So, the caller checking with
> this value is the same as checking with mtrr_enabled() you suggested.
So then you don't have to set *uniform = 1 on entry to
mtrr_type_lookup(). And change the retval test
if ((!uniform) && (mtrr != MTRR_TYPE_WRBACK))
to
if ((mtrr != MTRR_TYPE_INVALID) && (!uniform) && (mtrr != MTRR_TYPE_WRBACK))
You can put the MTRR_TYPE_INVALID first so that it shortcuts.
You need the distinction between MTRRs *disabled* and an MTRR region
being {non-,}uniform.
If MTRRs are disabled, uniform doesn't *mean* *anything* because it is
undefined. When MTRRs are disabled, the range is *not* covered by MTRRs
because, well, them MTRRs are disabled.
And it might be fine for *your* use case to set *uniform even when MTRRs
are disabled but it might matter in the future. So we better design it
correct from the beginning.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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