[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1434128306.11808.97.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:58:26 -0600
From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Jej B <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
syrjala@....fi, Juergen Gross <JGross@...e.com>,
Luis Rodriguez <Mcgrof@...e.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
linux-fbdev <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] RIP MTRR - status update for upcoming v4.2
On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 08:59 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.06.15 at 01:23, <toshi.kani@...com> wrote:
> > There are two usages on MTRRs:
> > 1) MTRR entries set by firmware
> > 2) MTRR entries set by OS drivers
> >
> > We can obsolete 2), but we have no control over 1). As UEFI firmwares
> > also set this up, this usage will continue to stay. So, we should not
> > get rid of the MTRR code that looks up the MTRR entries, while we have
> > no need to modify them.
> >
> > Such MTRR entries provide safe guard to /dev/mem, which allows
> > privileged user to access a range that may require UC mapping while
> > the /dev/mem driver blindly maps it with WB. MTRRs converts WB to UC in
> > such a case.
>
> But it wouldn't be impossible to simply read the MTRRs upon boot,
> store the information, disable MTRRs, and correctly use PAT to
> achieve the same effect (i.e. the "blindly maps" part of course
> would need fixing).
It could be done, but I do not see much benefit of doing it. One of the
reasons platform vendors set MTRRs is so that a system won't hit a
machine check when an OS bug leads an access with a wrong cache type. A
machine check is hard to analyze and can be seen as a hardware issue by
customers. Emulating MTRRs with PAT won't protect from such a bug.
> > UEFI memory table has memory attribute, which describes cache types
> > supported in physical memory ranges. However, this information gets
> > lost when it it is converted to e820 table.
>
> I'm afraid you rather don't want to trust that information, as
> firmware vendors frequently screw it up.
Could be, but we need to use firmware info when necessary...
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