Re: [PATCH] x86/cpu/amd: Remove dead code for TSEG region remapping

[Arvind Sankar]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 11:58:15AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 11/27/20 11:27 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 12:13:24PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> >> Commit
> >>    26bfa5f89486 ("x86, amd: Cleanup init_amd")
> >> moved the code that remaps the TSEG region using 4k pages from
> >> init_amd() to bsp_init_amd().
> >>
> >> However, bsp_init_amd() is executed well before the direct mapping is
> >> actually created:
> >>
> >>    setup_arch()
> >>      -> early_cpu_init()
> >>        -> early_identify_cpu()
> >>          -> this_cpu->c_bsp_init()
> >> 	  -> bsp_init_amd()
> >>      ...
> >>      -> init_mem_mapping()
> >>
> >> So the change effectively disabled the 4k remapping, because
> >> pfn_range_is_mapped() is always false at this point.
> >>
> >> It has been over six years since the commit, and no-one seems to have
> >> noticed this, so just remove the code. The original code was also
> >> incomplete, since it doesn't check how large the TSEG address range
> >> actually is, so it might remap only part of it in any case.
> > 
> > Yah, and the patch which added this:
> > 
> > 6c62aa4a3c12 ("x86: make amd.c have 64bit support code")
> > 
> > does not say what for (I'm not surprised, frankly).
> > 
> > So if AMD folks on Cc don't have any need for actually fixing this
> > properly, yap, we can zap it.
> 
> I believe this is geared towards performance. If the TSEG base address is 
> not 2MB aligned, then hardware has to break down a 2MB TLB entry if the OS 
> references the memory within the 2MB page that is before the TSEG base 
> address. This can occur whenever the 2MB TLB entry is re-installed because 
> of TLB flushes, etc.
> 
> I would hope that newer BIOSes are 2MB aligning the TSEG base address, but 
> if not, then this can help.
> 
> So moving it back wouldn't be a bad thing. It should probably only do the 
> set_memory_4k() if the TSEG base address is not 2MB aligned, which I think 
> is covered by the pfn_range_is_mapped() call?
> 

The pfn_range_is_mapped() call just checks whether it is mapped at all
in the direct mapping. Is the TSEG range supposed to be marked as
non-RAM in the E820 map? AFAICS, the only case when a direct mapping is
created for non-RAM is for the 0-1Mb real-mode range, and that will
always use 4k pages. Above that anything not marked as RAM will create
an unmapped hole in the direct map, so in this case the memory just
below the TSEG base would already use smaller pages if needed.

If it's possible that the E820 mapping says this range is RAM, then
should we also break up the direct map just after the end of the TSEG
range for the same reason?

Thanks.