Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:40:26 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/PAT: have pat_enabled() properly reflect state when
 running on e.g. Xen
Message-ID: <Ysv+Gh0Gk4+uGwrb@zn.tnic>
References: <9385fa60-fa5d-f559-a137-6608408f88b0@suse.com>
 <YsRTAGI2PhfZ5V7M@zn.tnic>
 <016d281b-7e40-f1bd-66ee-c19c3cc56efe@suse.com>
 <YsRjX/U1XN8rq+8u@zn.tnic>
 <b7fa785b-cea3-3e05-c101-d6c7bd101ef3@suse.com>
 <YsW/3/fEuNYAuFwZ@zn.tnic>
 <bc13c66d-a885-e405-7b53-8cd7afdbecff@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <bc13c66d-a885-e405-7b53-8cd7afdbecff@suse.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 08:38:44AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Well, right now the pvops hook for Xen swallows #GP anyway (wrongly
> so imo, but any of my earlier pointing out of that has been left
> unheard, despite even the code comments there saying "It may be worth
> changing that").

Oh great. ;-\

> The point is therefore that after writing PAT, it would need reading
> back. In which case it feels (slightly) more clean to me to avoid the
> write attempt in the first place, when we know it's not going to work.

X86_FEATURE_XENPV check then.

> If I may ask - doesn't this mean this patch, in its current shape, is
> already a (small) step in that direction? In any event what you say
> doesn't sound to me like a viable (backportable) route to addressing
> the regression at hand.

Backportable to where? To whatever tree has

bdd8b6c98239 ("drm/i915: replace X86_FEATURE_PAT with pat_enabled()")

? If it is that, then 5.17 and newer.

Anyway, I don't mind it as long as you put the proper splitting out
ontop and it all goes as a single patchset, with the minimal fix
CC:stable and queued first.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette