Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a6:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m35-v6csp2005915imm; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:28:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPy7Z6U013tBPUzkunuX/aCsQxluRP1LW3XSE6CxZ5UIGY9dhJA65j8Opwz8cd7vgwWQGfRD X-Received: by 2002:a62:a05:: with SMTP id s5-v6mr64345061pfi.147.1535052512450; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:28:32 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1535052512; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=jj3l9bEpkuXLnzb2VZZAQ6EKNoRF8/kMK3Iq9TPh87+lXa5hVbywhVmx1mELtxR38M scXGuaHUjvVvglxLuZGmyotl4PhGDznlnCB3CjBLEIIq7MFeXkKKD7FA9HO2tR596fY2 vdPUxng7agOMeVSZDkZLYhTOP85G6YzFfTsgcCa2PPeA4MqXda5So+/zDa6QoVbubRaS rXrrk/jpwP03Z5brU82mdyqYrBYQJIWgPNNOdgPUW0o6WRYlwLoflMDt8fq5eSx5pvBC zaPn1tk9ERq8Spe4BQaVTT8d3yh/4a5Np5UkdrZGATEIeL0mS5WvN8LUQQl8K4x7x9ne zPOg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=hPBHjG7padjHZZ0+aQnzW+HBp/a6DKzDxKYjupEgYe4=; b=T8ktXvL3Cjyx57Mo827kGNDybzHaYy3iQz64DhZSXuNMBkY+OXXc20LbMVU0I10UB4 h4BBA8n7rn2K3GmAO8O5tbCSpLjWvfxd8fze0fGLbUKnBk+nIUKYlJc7NFFeG2lxsRft kU4wCOdVIx9Gn2yUCwxRxx6+gdhlSvJjgsWbQ62Oy5vdQWLBIvdt7+9OBFrSu0aGVrMY en6O3ZY+72Ihj2qIq+njsUWQ5jnXwX/8YwLeGWh5DyWtM9zcFA8HDexVou/dE24thFPD nN00MLjDunUuzDzCPA8jPL6GnFx2i1036NAt8DnKV5nkng5mbHtzyC1+J8XnOUgEzuZQ Ywqw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id u22-v6si5064806plj.434.2018.08.23.12.28.16; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:28:32 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726694AbeHWW6V (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 18:58:21 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:59684 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726083AbeHWW6V (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 18:58:21 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE2EAEC0; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 19:27:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 21:27:09 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , Dave Hansen , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation/l1tf: suggest what to do on systems with too much RAM Message-ID: <20180823192709.GT29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180823134418.17008-1-vbabka@suse.cz> <20180823142812.7363-1-vbabka@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180823142812.7363-1-vbabka@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 23-08-18 16:28:12, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > Two users have reported [1] that they have an "extremely unlikely" system > with more than MAX_PA/2 memory and L1TF mitigation is not effective. Let's > make the warning more helpful by suggesting the proper mem=X kernel boot param, > a rough calculation of how much RAM can be lost (not precise if there's holes > between MAX_PA/2 and max_pfn in the e820 map) and a link to the L1TF document > to help decide if the mitigation is worth the unusable RAM. > > [1] https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105536 > > Suggested-by: Michal Hocko > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka I wouldn't bother with max_pfn-half_pa part but other than that this is much more useful than the original message. Acked-by: Michal Hocko > --- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > index cb4a16292aa7..4b820bb6c504 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > @@ -702,6 +702,11 @@ static void __init l1tf_select_mitigation(void) > half_pa = (u64)l1tf_pfn_limit() << PAGE_SHIFT; > if (e820__mapped_any(half_pa, ULLONG_MAX - half_pa, E820_TYPE_RAM)) { > pr_warn("System has more than MAX_PA/2 memory. L1TF mitigation not effective.\n"); > + pr_info("You may make it effective by booting the kernel with mem=%llu parameter.\n", > + half_pa); > + pr_info("However, doing so will make up to %llu bytes of RAM unusable.\n", > + ((u64) max_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - half_pa); > + pr_info("Reading Documentation/admin-guide/l1tf.rst might help you decide."); > return; > } > > -- > 2.18.0 -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs