Re: [tip:x86/microcode] x86/microcode_intel_early.c: Early update ucode on Intel's CPU
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [tip:x86/microcode] x86/microcode_intel_early.c: Early update ucode on Intel's CPU
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:23:47 -0800
- Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx>, "mingo@xxxxxxxxxx" <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-tip-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-tip-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <20121219225505.GA2968@jshin-Toonie>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
On 12/19/2012 02:55 PM, Jacob Shin wrote:
>
> Well, really the problem is with any memory hole above 4GB that is too
> big to be covered by variable range MTRRs as UC. Because the kernel
> use to just simply do init_memory_mapping for 4GB ~ top of memory,
> any memory hole above 4GB are marked as WB in PATs.
>
> How is this handled in Intel architecture? If there are memory holes
> that are too big to be covered by variable range MTRRs as UC, are
> there other MTRR like CPU registers that the BIOS programs?
>
Intel CPUs don't have the TOM augmentation to the MTRR mechanism, and so
MTRRs need to explicitly enable caching of memory rather than the other
way around.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Stable Commits]
[Linux Stable Kernel]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux USB Devel]
[Linux Video &Media]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]