Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] x86, mm, pat: Set WT to PA7 slot of PAT MSR

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 18:14 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
> >> > +   } else {
> >> > +           /*
> >> > +            * PAT full support. WT is set to slot 7, which minimizes
> >> > +            * the risk of using the PAT bit as slot 3 is UC and is
> >> > +            * currently unused. Slot 4 should remain as reserved.
> >>
> >> This comment makes no sense. What minimizes which risk and what has
> >> this to do with slot 3 and slot 4?
> >
> > This is for precaution.  Since the patch enables the PAT bit the first
> > time, it was suggested that we keep slot 4 reserved and set it to WB.
> > The PAT bit still has no effect to slot 0/1/2 (WB/WC/UC-) after this
> > patch.  Slot 7 is the safest slot since slot 3 (UC) is unused today.
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/4/691
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/5/394
> >
> 
> I would clarify the comment, since this really has nothing to do with
> slot 3 being unused.  How about:
> 
> We put WT in slot 7 to improve robustness in the presence of errata
> that might cause the high PAT bit to be ignored.  This way a buggy
> slot 7 access will hit slot 3, and slot 3 is UC, so at worst we lose
> performance without causing a correctness issue.  Pentium 4 erratum
> N46 is an example of such an erratum, although we try not to use PAT
> at all on affected CPUs.

Indeed. That makes a lot more sense.
 
> >> > +            *
> >> > +            *  PTE encoding used in Linux:
> >> > +            *      PAT
> >> > +            *      |PCD
> >> > +            *      ||PWT  PAT
> >> > +            *      |||    slot
> >> > +            *      000    0    WB : _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_WB
> >> > +            *      001    1    WC : _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_WC
> >> > +            *      010    2    UC-: _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_UC_MINUS
> >> > +            *      011    3    UC : _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_UC
> >> > +            *      100    4    <reserved>
> >> > +            *      101    5    <reserved>
> >> > +            *      110    6    <reserved>
> >>
> >> Well, they are still mapped to WB/WC/UC_MINUS ....
> >
> > Right, the reserved slots are also initialized with their safe values.
> > However, the macros _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_XXX only refer to the slots
> > specified above.

Then the table should reflect this, i.e.: reserved, but mapped to XX

And a comment below that explaining WHY we map the reserved slots.

Thanks,

	tglx

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]