Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1625646
| From | Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] X86: don't report PAT on CPUs that don't support it |
| Date | 2017-04-18 22:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <txIet-2fd-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <txGFI-1tx-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <txH8L-1CQ-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 04/18/17 12:07, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > In the file arch/x86/mm/pat.c, there's a variable __pat_enabled. The > > variable is set to 1 by default and the function pat_init() sets > > __pat_enabled to 0 if the CPU doesn't support PAT. > > > > However, on AMD K6-3 CPU, the processor initialization code never calls > > pat_init() and so __pat_enabled stays 1 and the function pat_enabled() > > returns true, even though the K6-3 CPU doesn't support PAT. > > > > The result of this bug is that this warning is produced when attemting to > > start the Xserver and the Xserver doesn't start (fork() returns ENOMEM). > > Another symptom of this bug is that the framebuffer driver doesn't set the > > K6-3 MTRR registers. > > > > This patch changes pat_enabled() so that it returns true only if pat > > initialization was actually done. > > > > Also, I changed boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PAT) to > > this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PAT) in pat_ap_init, so that we check the PAT > > feature on the processor that is being initialized. > > > > I'm thinking it would be better to replace __pat_enabled with > static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PAT) and disable the feature bit if the user > has disabled it on the command line, just as we do with other features. > > -hpa If MTRR initialization fails for whatever reason, then pat_init() won't be called and the kernel would mistakenly believe that PAT is working (because there would be no one to clear X86_FEATURE_PAT). I think that pat should be reported only if pat_init() is called and succeeds. Another strange thing: pat_disable() calls init_cache_modes() - but since pat_disable() may not be called at all, it is possible that init_cache_modes() is also not called at all. It doesn't produce any visible misbehavior on my machine, but it doesn't seem right - we should not call init_cache_modes() from pat_disable() and do the initialization elsewhere, where it is always called. Mikulas
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] X86: don't report PAT on CPUs that don't support it Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> - 2017-04-18 21:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] X86: don't report PAT on CPUs that don't support it "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2017-04-18 21:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] X86: don't report PAT on CPUs that don't support it Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> - 2017-04-18 22:50 +0200
csiph-web