From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juergen Gross Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] x86: Enable PAT to use cache mode translation tables Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:22:35 +0200 Message-ID: <53FB2A8B.1040500__1313.43773468888$1408969478$gmane$org@suse.com> References: <1408454745-32358-1-git-send-email-jgross@suse.com> <1408454745-32358-3-git-send-email-jgross@suse.com> <53F72A46020000780002C957@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XLtIF-0003py-86 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:22:39 +0000 In-Reply-To: <53F72A46020000780002C957@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: toshi.kani@hp.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stefan.bader@canonical.com, hpa@zytor.com, xen-devel , ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 08/22/2014 11:32 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 19.08.14 at 15:25, wrote: >> @@ -118,8 +167,14 @@ void pat_init(void) >> PAT(4, WB) | PAT(5, WC) | PAT(6, UC_MINUS) | PAT(7, UC); >> >> /* Boot CPU check */ >> - if (!boot_pat_state) >> + if (!boot_pat_state) { >> rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_CR_PAT, boot_pat_state); >> + /* >> + * Init cache mode tables before writing MSR to give Xen a >> + * chance to correct the changes when doing the write. >> + */ > > This comment seems pretty odd to me: For one, a PV guest on Xen > shouldn't be trying to write PAT MSR at all under the current ABI > (the write will be ignored, yes, but accompanied with a warning > message, which PV kernels - by the mere fact that they're PV - > should try to avoid). And then "correct the changes" both gives > the impression as if they were wrong and as if some of what the > kernel writes may be under the kernel's control. Hence I think this > code and comment should either be consistently assuming that the > kernel has no control at all, or should read back the value after > having written it, and set the internal tables based on the value > read back. I think the latter alternative is the better one. I'll change the patch. Juergen