Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1163699

Re: RIP MTRR - status update for upcoming v4.2

From "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: RIP MTRR - status update for upcoming v4.2
Date 2015-06-12 03:00 +0200
Message-ID <pAlua-5ZQ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <pAhqy-8v7-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <pAk54-45h-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 05:23:16PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 13:36 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>  :
> > Pending RIP MTRR patches
> > ====================
> > 
> > There are a few pending series so I wanted to provide a status update
> > on those series.
> > 
> > mtrr: bury MTRR - unexport mtrr_add() and mtrr_del()
> > 
> > This is the nail on the MTRR coffin, it will prevent future direct
> > access to MTRR code. This will not be posted until all of the below
> > patches are in and merged. A possible next step here might be to
> > consider separating PAT code from MTRR code and making PAT a first
> > class citizen, enabling distributions to disable MTRR code in the
> > future. I thought this was possible but for some reason I recently
> > thought that there was one possible issue to make this happen. I
> > suppose we won't know unless we try, unless of course someone already
> > knows, Toshi?
> 
> There are two usages on MTRRs:
>  1) MTRR entries set by firmware
>  2) MTRR entries set by OS drivers
> 
> We can obsolete 2), but we have no control over 1).  As UEFI firmwares
> also set this up, this usage will continue to stay.  So, we should not
> get rid of the MTRR code that looks up the MTRR entries, while we have
> no need to modify them.
> 
> Such MTRR entries provide safe guard to /dev/mem, which allows
> privileged user to access a range that may require UC mapping while
> the /dev/mem driver blindly maps it with WB.  MTRRs converts WB to UC in
> such a case.
> 
> UEFI memory table has memory attribute, which describes cache types
> supported in physical memory ranges.  However, this information gets
> lost when it it is converted to e820 table.

Is there no way to modify CPU capability bits upon boot and kick UEFI
to re-evaluate ? In such UEFI cases what happens for instance when
Xen is used which does not support MTRR?

  Luis
--
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/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

RIP MTRR - status update for upcoming v4.2 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> - 2015-06-11 22:40 +0200
  Re: RIP MTRR - status update for upcoming v4.2 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com> - 2015-06-12 03:00 +0200
  Re: [Xen-devel] RIP MTRR - status update for upcoming v4.2 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> - 2015-06-13 01:30 +0200
  Re: [Xen-devel] RIP MTRR - status update for upcoming v4.2 "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> - 2015-06-15 08:30 +0200

csiph-web