[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUQsf7S-b+zDrof0g61NnSB3XuqdAxjsHyJfjT3D39D3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 22:47:55 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Overlapping ioremap() calls, set_memory_*() semantics
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com> wrote:
> Let me try to summarize...
>
> The original issue Luis brought up was that drivers written to work with
> MTRR may create a single ioremap range covering multiple cache attributes
> since MTRR can overwrite cache attribute of a certain range. Converting
> such drivers with PAT-based ioremap interfaces, i.e. ioremap_wc() and
> ioremap_nocache(), requires a separate ioremap map for each cache
> attribute, which can be challenging as it may result in overlapping ioremap
> ranges (in his term) with different cache attributes.
>
> So, Luis asked about 'sematics of overlapping ioremap()' calls. Hence, I
> responded that aliasing mapping itself is supported, but alias with
> different cache attribute is not. We have checks in place to detect such
> condition. Overlapping ioremap calls with a different cache attribute
> either fails or gets redirected to the existing cache attribute on x86.
A little off-topic, but someone reminded me recently: most recent CPUs
have self-snoop. It's poorly documented, but on self-snooping CPUs, I
think that a lot of the aliasing issues go away. We may be able to
optimize the code quite a bit on these CPUs.
I also wonder whether we can drop a bunch of the memtype tracking.
After all, if we have aliases of different types on a self-snooping
CPU and /dev/mem is locked down hard enough, we could maybe get away
with letting self-snoop handle all the conflicts.
(We could also make /dev/mem always do UC if it would help.)
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists