From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <email@example.com> To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Yinghai Lu <email@example.com>, Stuart Hayes <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Prarit Bhargava <email@example.com>, Thomas Gleixner <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ingo Molnar <email@example.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <email@example.com>, the arch/x86 maintainers <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Toshi Kani <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH] x86: Use larger chunks in mtrr_cleanup Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:20:53 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160316202053.GO1990@wotan.suse.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAB=NE6X3ix5pSp2u6owraV73CfP+JBh+Ct0Ek8bNvw1Ft-5bGw@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:43:59AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Yinghai Lu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Stuart Hayes <email@example.com> wrote: > >> > >> Booting with 'disable_mtrr_cleanup' works, but the system I am working with > >> isn't actually failing--it just gets ugly error messages. And the BIOS on the > >> system I am working with had set up the MTRRs correctly. > > > > Please post boot log and /proc/mtrr for: > > 1. without your patch > > 2. without your patch and with disable_mtrr_cleanup in boot command line. > > 3. with your patch. > > Stuart, > > to provide some context -- I reached out to Yinghai as he wrote the > original mtrr cleanup code. The commit logs seem to read that a crash > was possible on systems with > 4 GiB RAM with some types of BIOSes... > The cleanup code seems to trigger when variable MTRRs do not exist > that are UC, or when all varible MTRRs that exist are just UC + WB > (Yinghai correct me if I'm wrong). The commit log in question > (95ffa2438d0e9 "x86: mtrr cleanup for converting continuous to > discrete layout, v8") was not very clear about the cause of the crash > -- but suppose the issue here was the BIOS on some systems might want > to create some UC variable MTRRs early on and there was no UC MTRRs > available, and I can only guess the cleanup exists as hack for those > BIOSes. Even if that was the case -- its still not clear *why* the > crash would happen but I suppose a driver mishap can happen without UC > guarantees for some devices the BIOS may want to enable UC MTRR on. > > To be able to determine what we do upstream we need to understand the > above first. We also need to understand if the cleanup might also be > implicated by userspace drivers using /proc/mtrr, or if a proprietary > driver exists that does use mtrr_add() directly even though PAT has > been available for ages and all drivers are now properly converted. > > With clear answers to the above we'll be able to determine what the > right course of action should be for this patch. For instance I'm > inclined to strive to disable the complex cleanup code if we don't > need it anymore, but if we do need it your patch makes sense. If the > patch makes sense then though are we going to have to keep updating > the segment size *every time* as systems grow? That seems rather > silly. And if PAT is prevalent why are vendors adding MTRRs still? The > cleanup seems complex and a major hack for a fix for some BIOSes, I'd > much rather identify the exact issue and only have a fix to address > that case. I never heard back... so let's take this up on the other thread I just raised. Luis
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-16 20:21 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <55E477DE.firstname.lastname@example.org> 2015-08-31 16:05 ` Stuart Hayes 2015-09-03 2:45 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2015-09-03 12:17 ` Prarit Bhargava 2015-09-03 17:59 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2015-09-03 18:10 ` Prarit Bhargava 2015-09-03 18:40 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2015-09-03 19:22 ` Toshi Kani 2015-09-03 19:51 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2015-09-03 21:31 ` Toshi Kani 2015-09-03 22:07 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2015-09-03 22:25 ` Toshi Kani 2015-09-03 22:45 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2015-09-03 23:21 ` Toshi Kani 2015-09-03 23:54 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2015-09-04 0:48 ` Toshi Kani 2015-09-04 1:40 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2015-09-04 14:56 ` Toshi Kani 2015-09-04 6:51 ` Jan Beulich 2015-09-14 14:46 ` Stuart Hayes 2015-11-05 19:14 ` Yinghai Lu 2015-11-05 19:43 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2016-03-16 20:20 ` Luis R. Rodriguez [this message] 2016-03-29 17:07 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20160316202053.GO1990@wotan.suse.de \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: Fwd: [PATCH] x86: Use larger chunks in mtrr_cleanup' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.