lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Xen-devel] RIP MTRR - status update for upcoming v4.2

* Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:

> On Jun 12, 2015 12:59 AM, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>> On 12.06.15 at 01:23, <toshi.kani@hp.com> wrote:
> > > There are two usages on MTRRs:
> > > 1) MTRR entries set by firmware
> > > 2) MTRR entries set by OS drivers
> > >
> > > We can obsolete 2), but we have no control over 1). As UEFI firmwares
> > > also set this up, this usage will continue to stay. So, we should not
> > > get rid of the MTRR code that looks up the MTRR entries, while we have
> > > no need to modify them.
> > >
> > > Such MTRR entries provide safe guard to /dev/mem, which allows privileged
> > > user to access a range that may require UC mapping while the /dev/mem driver
> > > blindly maps it with WB. MTRRs converts WB to UC in such a case.
> >
> > But it wouldn't be impossible to simply read the MTRRs upon boot, store the
> > information, disable MTRRs, and correctly use PAT to achieve the same effect
> > (i.e. the "blindly maps" part of course would need fixing).
>
> This may crash and burn badly when we call a UEFI function or an SMI happens. I
> think we should just leave the MTRRs alone.

Not to mention suspend/resume, reboot and other goodies where the firmware might
pop up expecting intact MTRRs.

Btw., doesn't a lack of MTRRs imply UC? So is 'crash and burn' possible in most
cases? Isn't it just 'executes slower than before'?

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-06-13 09:21    [W:0.104 / U:0.876 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site