On 13.07.2022 13:10, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 7/13/2022 6:36 AM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 7/13/2022 5:09 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.07.2022 10:51, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 7/13/22 2:18 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.07.2022 03:36, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
v2: *Add force_pat_disabled variable to fix "nopat" on Xen PV (Jan Beulich)
*Add the necessary code to incorporate the "nopat" fix
*void init_cache_modes(void) -> void __init init_cache_modes(void)
*Add Jan Beulich as Co-developer (Jan has not signed off yet)
*Expand the commit message to include relevant parts of the commit
message of Jan Beulich's proposed patch for this problem
*Fix 'else if ... {' placement and indentation
*Remove indication the backport to stable branches is only back to 5.17.y
I think these changes address all the comments on the original patch
I added Jan Beulich as a Co-developer because Juergen Gross asked me to
include Jan's idea for fixing "nopat" that was missing from the first
version of the patch.
You've sufficiently altered this change to clearly no longer want my
S-o-b; unfortunately in fact I think you broke things:
Well, I hope we can come to an agreement so I have
your S-o-b. But that would probably require me to remove
Juergen's R-b.
@@ -292,7 +294,7 @@ void init_cache_modes(void)
rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_CR_PAT, pat);
}
- if (!pat) {
+ if (!pat || pat_force_disabled) {
By checking the new variable here ...
/*
* No PAT. Emulate the PAT table that corresponds to the two
* cache bits, PWT (Write Through) and PCD (Cache Disable).
@@ -313,6 +315,16 @@ void init_cache_modes(void)
*/
pat = PAT(0, WB) | PAT(1, WT) | PAT(2, UC_MINUS) | PAT(3, UC) |
PAT(4, WB) | PAT(5, WT) | PAT(6, UC_MINUS) | PAT(7, UC);
... you put in place a software view which doesn't match hardware. I
continue to think that ...
+ } else if (!pat_bp_enabled) {
... the variable wants checking here instead (at which point, yes,
this comes quite close to simply being a v2 of my original patch).
By using !pat_bp_enabled here you actually broaden where the change
would take effect. Iirc Boris had asked to narrow things (besides
voicing opposition to this approach altogether). Even without that
request I wonder whether you aren't going to far with this.
Jan
I thought about checking for the administrator's "nopat"
setting where you suggest which would limit the effect
of "nopat" to not reporting PAT as enabled to device
drivers who query for PAT availability using pat_enabled().
The main reason I did not do that is that due to the fact
that we cannot write to the PAT MSR, we cannot really
disable PAT. But we come closer to respecting the wishes
of the administrator by configuring the caching modes as
if PAT is actually disabled by the hardware or firmware
when in fact it is not.
What would you propose logging as a message when
we report PAT as disabled via pat_enabled()? The main
reason I did not choose to check the new variable in the
new 'else if' block is that I could not figure out what to
tell the administrator in that case. I think we would have
to log something like, "nopat is set, but we cannot disable
PAT, doing our best to disable PAT by not reporting PAT
as enabled via pat_enabled(), but that does not guarantee
that kernel drivers and components cannot use PAT if they
query for PAT support using boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PAT)
instead of pat_enabled()." However, I acknowledge WC mappings
would still be disabled because arch_can_pci_mmap_wc() will
be false if pat_enabled() is false.
Perhaps we also need to log something if we keep the
check for "nopat" where I placed it. We could say something
like: "nopat is set, but we cannot disable hardware/firmware
PAT support, so we are emulating as if there is no PAT support
which puts in place a software view that does not match
hardware."
No matter what, because we cannot write to PAT MSR in
the Xen PV case, we probably need to log something to
explain the problems associated with trying to honor the
administrator's request. Also, what log level should it be.
Should it be a pr_warn instead of a pr_info?
I'm afraid I'm the wrong one to answer logging questions. As you
can see from my original patch, I didn't add any new logging (and
no addition was requested in the comments that I have got). I also
don't think "nopat" has ever meant "disable PAT", as the feature
is either there or not. Instead I think it was always seen as
"disable fiddling with PAT", which by implication means using
whatever is there (if the feature / MSR itself is available).
IIRC, I do think I mentioned in the comments on your patch that
it would be preferable to mention in the commit message that
your patch would change the current behavior of "nopat" on
Xen. The question is, how much do we want to change the
current behavior of "nopat" on Xen. I think if we have to change
the current behavior of "nopat" on Xen and if we are going
to propagate that change to all current stable branches all
the way back to 4.9.y,, we better make a lot of noise about
what we are doing here.
Chuck
And in addition, if we are going to backport this patch to
all current stable branches, we better have a really, really,
good reason for changing the behavior of "nopat" on Xen.
Does such a reason exist?
Well, the simple reason is: It doesn't work the same way under Xen
and non-Xen (in turn because, before my patch or whatever equivalent
work, things don't work properly anyway, PAT-wise). Yet it definitely
ought to behave the same everywhere, imo.
Or perhaps, Juergen, could you
accept a v3 of my patch that does not need to decide
how to backport the change to "nopat" to the stable branches
that are affected by the current behavior of "nopat" on Xen?
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature