[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d164d84b-6773-36e3-1136-672072e9233d@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:30:09 +0200
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/15] x86/mtrr: construct a memory map with cache
modes
On 20.04.23 14:15, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2023 at 08:36:48AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> +static void rm_map_entry_at(int idx)
>> +{
>> + cache_map_n--;
>
> Let's not call memmove() when cache_map_n == idx.
>
> Below too.
>
> Especially since cache_map + idx + 1 is not valid and I wouldn't want it
> getting prefetched from %rsi in the hw when there's no reason for it and
> also the RET even from a function which doesn't do anything, costs.
OTOH the additional compare to 0 has costs, too, and this cost is spent for
ALL calls, while the zero size call is a rather rare case.
Regarding "cache_map + idx + 1 is not valid": the standard clearly points
out that a call with size 0 is valid and won't copy anything [1].
>
>> + memmove(cache_map + idx, cache_map + idx + 1,
>> + sizeof(*cache_map) * (cache_map_n - idx));
>> +}
>
> Ok, first weird issue I encountered while playing with my carved out
> program to exercise this cache_map handling thing. I can share it if you
> want it - it is ugly but it works.
>
> So while rebuilding the map, I have these current regions in the map, at
> one point in time:
>
> Current map:
> 0: start: 0x0000000000000000, end: 0x0000000000100000, type: 0x0
> 1: start: 0x0000000100000000, end: 0x0000000820000000, type: 0x6
> 2: start: 0x000002f10000c000, end: 0x000003bf0000c000, type: 0x2
> 3: start: 0x000003bf0000c000, end: 0x00000d4b0000c000, type: 0x1
> 4: start: 0x00000d4b0000c000, end: 0x00019fc000001000, type: 0x0
> 5: start: 0x00019fc000001000, end: 0x0001df2d00001000, type: 0x2
>
> note entry #3.
>
> Now the next one it inserts is:
>
> add_map_entry_at: start: 0x3bf0000c000, end: 0xd4b0000c000, type: 0x0, idx: 3
> merge_prev 0: prev->fixed: 0, prev->end: 0x3bf0000c000, prev->type: 0x2
> merge_next: 1, next->fixed: 0, next->start: 0xd4b0000c000, next->type: 0x0
> add_map_entry_at: ret: 1
>
> Note how it is the same as entry number #3 - just a different type.
>
> What it ends up doing is, it simply overwrites the previous one and
> merges it with the next:
>
> Current map:
> 0: start: 0x0000000000000000, end: 0x0000000000100000, type: 0x0
> 1: start: 0x0000000100000000, end: 0x0000000820000000, type: 0x6
> 2: start: 0x000002f10000c000, end: 0x000003bf0000c000, type: 0x2
> 3: start: 0x000003bf0000c000, end: 0x00019fc000001000, type: 0x0
> 4: start: 0x00019fc000001000, end: 0x0001df2d00001000, type: 0x2
The map would reflect hardware behavior. Type 0 wins in case of overlapping
MTRRs.
> Now I think right about now we should've screamed loudly.
Now this is another requirement, right? Today's MTRR code wouldn't scream
either.
> I know I know, this should never happen, right? And firmware programming
> those MTRRs doesn't make mistakes...
At least we don't correct such mistakes today. Do you think we should change
that?
> However, we should be loud here and scream when a MTRR range disappears
> like that.
>
> Right?
TBH, I don't know.
Juergen
Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3099 bytes)
Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists