[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YwM+GPu8hFowl2R7@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 10:28:08 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] x86/mtrr: fix MTRR fixup on APs
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 07:17:40AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> And then there is mtrr_state_warn() in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/generic.c
> which has a comment saying:
>
> /* Some BIOS's are messed up and don't set all MTRRs the same! */
That thing also says:
pr_info("mtrr: probably your BIOS does not setup all CPUs.\n");
pr_info("mtrr: corrected configuration.\n");
because it'll go and force on all CPUs the MTRR state it read from the
BSP in mtrr_bp_init->get_mtrr_state.
> Yes, the chances are slim to hit such a box,
Well, my workstation says:
$ dmesg | grep -i mtrr
[ 0.391514] mtrr: your CPUs had inconsistent variable MTRR settings
[ 0.395199] mtrr: probably your BIOS does not setup all CPUs.
[ 0.399199] mtrr: corrected configuration.
but that's the variable MTRRs.
> but your reasoning suggests I should remove the related code?
My reasoning says you should not do anything at all here - works as
advertized. :-)
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists