From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752062Ab2LSXXz (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:23:55 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:39776 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751259Ab2LSXXt (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:23:49 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,320,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="236664200" Message-ID: <50D24C83.3080906@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:23:47 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jacob Shin CC: "H. Peter Anvin" , Borislav Petkov , Yinghai Lu , "Yu, Fenghua" , "mingo@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Stefano Stabellini Subject: Re: [tip:x86/microcode] x86/microcode_intel_early.c: Early update ucode on Intel's CPU References: <50CCCFD0.7030704@linux.intel.com> <50CCEE49.3080801@zytor.com> <50CCF6F6.4020107@zytor.com> <50CD04F1.8020902@zytor.com> <0dcbce7a-d2ae-44fa-9658-81590f71ec47@email.android.com> <20121219220504.GA32212@jshin-Toonie> <50D23EE8.7030904@zytor.com> <20121219225505.GA2968@jshin-Toonie> In-Reply-To: <20121219225505.GA2968@jshin-Toonie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/19/2012 02:55 PM, Jacob Shin wrote: > > Well, really the problem is with any memory hole above 4GB that is too > big to be covered by variable range MTRRs as UC. Because the kernel > use to just simply do init_memory_mapping for 4GB ~ top of memory, > any memory hole above 4GB are marked as WB in PATs. > > How is this handled in Intel architecture? If there are memory holes > that are too big to be covered by variable range MTRRs as UC, are > there other MTRR like CPU registers that the BIOS programs? > Intel CPUs don't have the TOM augmentation to the MTRR mechanism, and so MTRRs need to explicitly enable caching of memory rather than the other way around. -hpa