Message-ID: <81f3e88e-a13d-f89d-6010-516f4286e0e1@netscape.net>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jul 2022 22:58:09 -0400
From:   Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@...scape.net>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>,
        Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Subject: x86/PAT: Report PAT on CPUs that support PAT
 without MTRR

On 7/14/2022 10:53 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> On 7/14/2022 10:19 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > On 7/14/2022 1:40 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > On 13.07.22 03:36, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > > > The commit 99c13b8c8896d7bcb92753bf
> > > > ("x86/mm/pat: Don't report PAT on CPUs that don't support it")
> > > > incorrectly failed to account for the case in init_cache_modes() when
> > > > CPUs do support PAT and falsely reported PAT to be disabled when in
> > > > fact PAT is enabled. In some environments, notably in Xen PV domains,
> > > > MTRR is disabled but PAT is still enabled, and that is the case
> > > > that the aforementioned commit failed to account for.
> > > > 
> > > > As an unfortunate consequnce, the pat_enabled() function currently does
> > > > not correctly report that PAT is enabled in such environments. The fix
> > > > is implemented in init_cache_modes() by setting pat_bp_enabled to true
> > > > in init_cache_modes() for the case that commit 99c13b8c8896d7bcb92753bf
> > > > ("x86/mm/pat: Don't report PAT on CPUs that don't support it") failed
> > > > to account for.
> > > > 
> > > > This approach arranges for pat_enabled() to return true in the Xen PV
> > > > environment without undermining the rest of PAT MSR management logic
> > > > that considers PAT to be disabled: Specifically, no writes to the PAT
> > > > MSR should occur.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch fixes a regression that some users are experiencing with
> > > > Linux as a Xen Dom0 driving particular Intel graphics devices by
> > > > correctly reporting to the Intel i915 driver that PAT is enabled where
> > > > previously it was falsely reporting that PAT is disabled. Some users
> > > > are experiencing system hangs in Xen PV Dom0 and all users on Xen PV
> > > > Dom0 are experiencing reduced graphics performance because the keying of
> > > > the use of WC mappings to pat_enabled() (see arch_can_pci_mmap_wc())
> > > > means that in particular graphics frame buffer accesses are quite a bit
> > > > less performant than possible without this patch.
> > > > 
> > > > Also, with the current code, in the Xen PV environment, PAT will not be
> > > > disabled if the administrator sets the "nopat" boot option. Introduce
> > > > a new boolean variable, pat_force_disable, to forcibly disable PAT
> > > > when the administrator sets the "nopat" option to override the default
> > > > behavior of using the PAT configuration that Xen has provided.
> > > > 
> > > > For the new boolean to live in .init.data, init_cache_modes() also needs
> > > > moving to .init.text (where it could/should have lived already before).
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: 99c13b8c8896d7bcb92753bf ("x86/mm/pat: Don't report PAT on CPUs that don't support it")
> > > > Co-developed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
> > > > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@....com>
> > > > ---
> > > > v2: *Add force_pat_disabled variable to fix "nopat" on Xen PV (Jan Beulich)
> > > >      *Add the necessary code to incorporate the "nopat" fix
> > > >      *void init_cache_modes(void) -> void __init init_cache_modes(void)
> > > >      *Add Jan Beulich as Co-developer (Jan has not signed off yet)
> > > >      *Expand the commit message to include relevant parts of the commit
> > > >       message of Jan Beulich's proposed patch for this problem
> > > >      *Fix 'else if ... {' placement and indentation
> > > >      *Remove indication the backport to stable branches is only back to 5.17.y
> > > > 
> > > > I think these changes address all the comments on the original patch
> > > > 
> > > > I added Jan Beulich as a Co-developer because Juergen Gross asked me to
> > > > include Jan's idea for fixing "nopat" that was missing from the first
> > > > version of the patch.
> > > > 
> > > > The patch has been tested, it works as expected with and without nopat
> > > > in the Xen PV Dom0 environment. That is, "nopat" causes the system to
> > > > exhibit the effects and problems that lack of PAT support causes.
> > > > 
> > > >   arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> > > >   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c b/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
> > > > index d5ef64ddd35e..10a37d309d23 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
> > > > @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@
> > > >   
> > > >   static bool __read_mostly pat_bp_initialized;
> > > >   static bool __read_mostly pat_disabled = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_PAT);
> > > > +static bool __initdata pat_force_disabled = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_PAT);
> > > >   static bool __read_mostly pat_bp_enabled;
> > > >   static bool __read_mostly pat_cm_initialized;
> > > >   
> > > > @@ -86,6 +87,7 @@ void pat_disable(const char *msg_reason)
> > > >   static int __init nopat(char *str)
> > > >   {
> > > >   	pat_disable("PAT support disabled via boot option.");
> > > > +	pat_force_disabled = true;
> > > >   	return 0;
> > > >   }
> > > >   early_param("nopat", nopat);
> > > > @@ -272,7 +274,7 @@ static void pat_ap_init(u64 pat)
> > > >   	wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_CR_PAT, pat);
> > > >   }
> > > >   
> > > > -void init_cache_modes(void)
> > > > +void __init init_cache_modes(void)
> > > >   {
> > > >   	u64 pat = 0;
> > > >   
> > > > @@ -292,7 +294,7 @@ void init_cache_modes(void)
> > > >   		rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_CR_PAT, pat);
> > > >   	}
> > > >   
> > > > -	if (!pat) {
> > > > +	if (!pat || pat_force_disabled) {
> > >
> > > Can we just remove this modification and ...
> > >
> > > >   		/*
> > > >   		 * No PAT. Emulate the PAT table that corresponds to the two
> > > >   		 * cache bits, PWT (Write Through) and PCD (Cache Disable).
> > > > @@ -313,6 +315,16 @@ void init_cache_modes(void)
> > > >   		 */
> > > >   		pat = PAT(0, WB) | PAT(1, WT) | PAT(2, UC_MINUS) | PAT(3, UC) |
> > > >   		      PAT(4, WB) | PAT(5, WT) | PAT(6, UC_MINUS) | PAT(7, UC);
> > > > +	} else if (!pat_bp_enabled) {
> > >
> > > ... use
> > >
> > > +	} else if (!pat_bp_enabled && !pat_force_disabled) {
> > >
> > > here?
> > >
> > > This will result in the desired outcome in all cases IMO: If PAT wasn't
> > > disabled via "nopat" and the PAT MSR has a non-zero value (from BIOS or
> > > Hypervisor) and PAT has been disabled implicitly (e.g. due to lack of
> > > MTRR), then PAT will be set to "enabled" again.
> >
> > With that, you can also completely remove the new Boolean - it
> > will be a meaningless variable wasting memory. This will also make
> > my patch more or less do what Jan's patch does - the "nopat" option
> > will not cause the situation when the PAT MSR does not match the
> > software view. So you are basically proposing just going back to
> > my original patch, after fixing the style problems, of course. That
> > also would solve the problem of needing Jan's S-o-b. I am inclined,
> > however, to wait for a maintainer who has power to actually do the
> > commit, to make a comment. Your R-b to my v2 did not have much clout
> > with the actual maintainers, as far as I can tell. I am somewhat annoyed
> > that it was at your suggestion that my v2 ended up confusing the
> > main issue, the regression, with the red herring of the "nopat"
> > option.
> >
> > Chuck
>
> Actually, what your change does depend on keeping
> pat_force_disable, but after all the discussion and
> further thinking about this, I would prefer that you
> give a R-b to v3 as simply my original patch with the
> style fixed. I think it is wrong to confuse the regression
> with the "nopat" issue. If you and Jan want to do a patch
> for the "nopat" issue, that is your decision. I am not interested
> in that. I am interested in fixing the regression. Also, I am
> not included to formally submit v3 until Dave, Andy, Boris, or
> someone else with more clout here on Linux expresses
> interest in giving this idea an R-b.

I meant to say "i am not inclined..." not I am not included..."

Sorry for the confusion,

Chuck

>
> >
> >
> > > > +		/*
> > > > +		 * In some environments, specifically Xen PV, PAT
> > > > +		 * initialization is skipped because MTRRs are disabled even
> > > > +		 * though PAT is available. In such environments, set PAT to
> > > > +		 * enabled to correctly indicate to callers of pat_enabled()
> > > > +		 * that CPU support for PAT is available.
> > > > +		 */
> > > > +		pat_bp_enabled = true;
> > > > +		pr_info("x86/PAT: PAT enabled by init_cache_modes\n");
> > > >   	}
> > > >   
> > > >   	__init_cache_modes(pat);
> > >
> > >
> > > Juergen
> >
> >
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists