lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/17] x86: Use new cache mode type in setting page attributes
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 10/31/2014 04:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Oct 2014, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> > > @@ -1304,12 +1304,6 @@ static int __change_page_attr_set_clr(struct
> > > cpa_data *cpa, int checkalias)
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static inline int cache_attr(pgprot_t attr)
> > > -{
> > > - return pgprot_val(attr) &
> > > - (_PAGE_PAT | _PAGE_PAT_LARGE | _PAGE_PWT | _PAGE_PCD);
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > static int change_page_attr_set_clr(unsigned long *addr, int numpages,
> > > pgprot_t mask_set, pgprot_t mask_clr,
> > > int force_split, int in_flag,
> > > @@ -1390,7 +1384,7 @@ static int change_page_attr_set_clr(unsigned long
> > > *addr, int numpages,
> > > * No need to flush, when we did not set any of the caching
> > > * attributes:
> > > */
> > > - cache = cache_attr(mask_set);
> > > + cache = !!pgprot2cachemode(mask_set);
> >
> > So this loses _PAGE_PAT_LARGE, right ?
>
> change_page_attr_set_clr() is never called with _PAGE_PAT_LARGE set in
> mask, so this is no problem.

Ok. The we should have a separate patch which removes it first with a
proper explanation and then the one which uses pgprot2cachemode().

> BTW: correct handling of the PAT bit for large pages is added in
> patch 15. There have been places in the kernel respecting
> _PAGE_PAT_LARGE, but handling has never been complete up to now.

Yes. I've seen that.

> > > int _set_memory_wb(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
> > > {
> > > + /* WB cache mode is hard wired to all cache attribute bits being 0 */
> >
> > I like the comment, but shouldn't we compile time check that
> > assumption somewhere?
>
> There is a comment in patch 1 where the page_cache_mode enum is set up.
> The translation functions between page_cache_mode and protection values
> have a special check for "0" built in. Isn't this enough?
>
> BTW: How would you check this assumption at compile time? The
> translation between WB cache mode and protection values is done only
> dynamically...

Indeed.

Thanks,

tglx


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-03 11:41    [W:0.083 / U:1.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site