Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758696AbYAXVmG (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:42:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755654AbYAXVlz (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:41:55 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:46098 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753520AbYAXVly (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:41:54 -0500 Message-ID: <479904DF.60305@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:36:31 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Eric W. Biederman" CC: "Siddha, Suresh B" , Ingo Molnar , Andreas Herrmann3 , Venki Pallipadi , ak@muc.de, rdreier@cisco.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, gregkh@suse.de, airlied@skynet.ie, davej@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@infradead.org, jesse.barnes@intel.com, davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes References: <20080116023955.597433000@intel.com> <20080116185748.GA11244@alberich.amd.com> <20080116203328.GA17869@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <20080117191211.GA12631@alberich.amd.com> <20080117203600.GB27778@elte.hu> <20080117210301.GC12631@alberich.amd.com> <20080117211308.GA7858@elte.hu> <20080117213131.GA25389@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <478FCAD8.2020904@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1237 Lines: 39 Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> | WB WT WC UC >> ---+--------------- >> WB | WB WT WC UC >> WT | WT WT UC UC >> WC | WC UC WC UC >> UC | UC UC UC UC >> >> With the current PAT encoding: >> >> WB = 00 >> WT = 01 >> WC = 10 >> UC = 11 >> >> ... this is simply a bitwise OR. This makes sense, since one of the bits denies >> delaying writes (WT, UC), and the other denies delaying reads (WC, UC). > > Almost. There is a specific case and important where MTRR UC + page table WC == WC. > > But yes. For ioremap where we are WB + MTRR == MTRR we need to request the > same attributes as the e820 map, to get the attribute checking correct. > True; however, that shouldn't be followed for the case of conflicting attempts at mapping. Now, I *believe* it is safe to have some mappings UC and some WC. This is also something to keep in mind (there are legitimate applications for that particular form of aliasing, too.) If so, we may not want to thump at those. -hpa -- 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/