Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754022AbaKCSJC (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2014 13:09:02 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com ([209.85.217.169]:38395 "EHLO mail-lb0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753807AbaKCSI4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2014 13:08:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1415036879.29109.26.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> References: <1414450545-14028-1-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hp.com> <1414450545-14028-2-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hp.com> <1415036879.29109.26.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:08:34 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] x86, mm, pat: Set WT to PA7 slot of PAT MSR To: Toshi Kani Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Juergen Gross , Stefan Bader , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Yigal Korman , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Toshi Kani 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. --Andy >> > + * >> > + * 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 >> > + * 101 5 >> > + * 110 6 >> >> 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. > >> > + * 111 7 WT : _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_WT >> > + */ >> > + pat = PAT(0, WB) | PAT(1, WC) | PAT(2, UC_MINUS) | PAT(3, UC) | >> > + PAT(4, WB) | PAT(5, WC) | PAT(6, UC_MINUS) | PAT(7, WT); >> > + } >> >> Thanks, > > Thanks for the review! > -Toshi > -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/