[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] x86: make pat and mtrr independent from each other
Hi Juergen!

On 15.07.22 16:25, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Today PAT can't be used without MTRR being available, unless MTRR is at
> least configured via CONFIG_MTRR and the system is running as Xen PV
> guest. In this case PAT is automatically available via the hypervisor,
> but the PAT MSR can't be modified by the kernel and MTRR is disabled.
> As an additional complexity the availability of PAT can't be queried
> via pat_enabled() in the Xen PV case, as the lack of MTRR will set PAT
> to be disabled. This leads to some drivers believing that not all cache
> modes are available, resulting in failures or degraded functionality.
> The same applies to a kernel built with no MTRR support: it won't
> allow to use the PAT MSR, even if there is no technical reason for
> that, other than setting up PAT on all cpus the same way (which is a
> requirement of the processor's cache management) is relying on some
> MTRR specific code.
> Fix all of that by:
> - moving the function needed by PAT from MTRR specific code one level
> up
> - adding a PAT indirection layer supporting the 3 cases "no or disabled
> PAT", "PAT under kernel control", and "PAT under Xen control"
> - removing the dependency of PAT on MTRR

Thx for working on this. If you need to respin these patches for one
reason or another, could you do me a favor and add proper 'Link:' tags
pointing to all reports about this issue? e.g. like this:


These tags are considered important by Linus[1] and others, as they
allow anyone to look into the backstory weeks or years from now. That is
why they should be placed in cases like this, as
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and
Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst explain in more detail. I care
personally, because these tags make my regression tracking efforts a
whole lot easier, as they allow my tracking bot 'regzbot' to
automatically connect reports with patches posted or committed to fix
tracked regressions.

[1] see for example:

Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)

P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.

BTW, let me tell regzbot to monitor this thread:

#regzbot ^backmonitor:

 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-17 09:56    [W:0.250 / U:0.540 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site