Re: [PATCH v3 03/10] x86/mtrr: replace use_intel() with a local flag

[Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3156 bytes --]

On 12.09.22 11:10, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 11.09.22 12:16, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:49:07AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cacheinfo.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cacheinfo.h
>>> index 86b2e0dcc4bf..1aeafa9888f7 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cacheinfo.h
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cacheinfo.h
>>> @@ -2,6 +2,11 @@
>>>   #ifndef _ASM_X86_CACHEINFO_H
>>>   #define _ASM_X86_CACHEINFO_H
>>> +/* Kernel controls MTRR and/or PAT MSRs. */
>>> +extern unsigned int cache_generic;
>>
>> So this should be called something more descriptive like
>>
>>     memory_caching_types
> 
> In the end this variable doesn't specify which caching types are available,
> but the ways to select/control the caching types.
> 
> So what about "memory_caching_select" or "memory_caching_control" instead?
> 
>> or so to denote that this is a bitfield of supported memory caching
>> technologies. The code then would read as
>>
>>     if (memory_caching_types & CACHE_MTRR)
>>
>> The name's still not optimal tho - needs more brooding over.
>>
>>> +#define CACHE_GENERIC_MTRR 0x01
>>> +#define CACHE_GENERIC_PAT  0x02
>>
>> And those should be CACHE_{MTRR,PAT}.
> 
> Fine with me.
> 
>>>   void cacheinfo_amd_init_llc_id(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, int cpu);
>>>   void cacheinfo_hygon_init_llc_id(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, int cpu);
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cacheinfo.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cacheinfo.c
>>> index 66556833d7af..3b05d3ade7a6 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cacheinfo.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cacheinfo.c
>>> @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(cpumask_var_t, cpu_llc_shared_map);
>>>   /* Shared L2 cache maps */
>>>   DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(cpumask_var_t, cpu_l2c_shared_map);
>>> +/* Kernel controls MTRR and/or PAT MSRs. */
>>> +unsigned int cache_generic;
>>
>> This should either be __ro_after_init and initialized to 0 or you need
>> accessors...
> 
> Okay.
> 
>>
>>>   u32 num_var_ranges;
>>> -static bool __mtrr_enabled;
>>> -
>>> -static bool mtrr_enabled(void)
>>> -{
>>> -    return __mtrr_enabled;
>>> -}
>>> +static bool mtrr_enabled;
>>
>> Hmm, I don't like this. There's way too many boolean flags in the mtrr
>> code. There's mtrr_state.enabled too. ;-\
>>
>> Can we set (or clear) X86_FEATURE_MTRR to denote MTRR enablement status
>> and get rid of one more boolean flag?
> 
> I'll have a look.

Hmm, this might be a little bit risky.

It can be done, but then X86_FEATURE_MTRR could be set even for cpus
NOT supporting it (the 32-bit special cases AMD, CENTAUR, CYRIX).

So we have the following alternatives:

- do the switch to X86_FEATURE_MTRR risking code breakage for later
   code changes querying X86_FEATURE_MTRR and assuming the MTRR MSRs
   being available

- keep the current bool

- replace the bool with mtrr_if != NULL

- add a new synthetic feature, e.g. X86_FEATURE_MTRR_ENABLED (which in
   fact would be just a replacement of the current bool)

My preference would be the replacement with mtrr_if != NULL.


Juergen

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3149 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 bytes --]