From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Cachemap for 2.6.12rc4-mm1. Was Re: [PATCH] enhance x86 MTRR handling
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 19:23:57 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050513232357.GB13846@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42852CE2.4090102@zytor.com>
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:40:34PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
>
> >+ switch (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor) {
> >+ case X86_VENDOR_AMD:
> >+ wrmsr(IA32_CR_PAT, AMD_PAT_31_0, AMD_PAT_63_32);
> >+ atomic_inc(&pat_cpus_enabled);
> >+ break;
> >+ case X86_VENDOR_INTEL:
> >+ wrmsr(IA32_CR_PAT, INTEL_PAT_31_0, INTEL_PAT_63_32);
> >+ atomic_inc(&pat_cpus_enabled);
> >+ break;
> >+ default:
> >+ printk("Unknown vendor in setup_pat()\n");
> >+ }
>
> Drop the vendor check; PAT is a generic x86 feature. If AMD is not
> compatible (see below), then use X86_VENDOR_AMD: and default:.
Done. Does transmeta have PAT btw ? I know newer VIA has it,
but I haven't looked through the docs to double check its
implementation yet.
> >+ /* checks copied from arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c */
> >+ /* do these only apply to mtrrs or pat as well? */
>
> It would apply to both; the chipset wouldn't even know how it got invoked.
ACK, Comment dropped.
> >+/* Here is the PAT's default layout on ia32 cpus when we are done.
> >+ * PAT0: Write Back
> >+ * PAT1: Write Combine
> >+ * PAT2: Uncached
> >+ * PAT3: Uncacheable
> >+ * PAT4: Write Through
> >+ * PAT5: Write Protect
> >+ * PAT6: Uncached
> >+ * PAT7: Uncacheable
>
> Bad move. Some (Intel) processors drop the top bit, so it's much better
> to pick the protection methods one cares about (usually WB, WC, UC) and
> stick them in the first four, then duplicate the whole thing in the
> second half.
Noted.
> >+ * Note: On Athlon cpus PAT2/PAT3 & PAT6/PAT7 are both Uncacheable since
> >+ * there is no uncached type.
> If one sets the PAT to "uncached", does one get the same function as
> "uncachable"?
AIUI, only as long as we don't have an MTRR covering the same range marked WC.
It seems to be the only thing I could find documenting the differences
between 'uncached' and 'uncacheable' in this context.
Though I've only looked through the Intel & AMD K8 docs, I don't have
the K7 ones to hand.
Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-13 23:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-12 9:08 [PATCH] enhance x86 MTRR handling Jan Beulich
2005-05-12 16:18 ` Dave Jones
2005-05-12 17:02 ` David Addison
2005-05-12 21:41 ` [RFC] Cachemap for 2.6.12rc4-mm1. Was " Dave Jones
2005-05-13 13:29 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-13 14:24 ` Dave Hansen
2005-05-13 14:35 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-13 15:52 ` Dave Jones
2005-05-18 22:01 ` Terence Ripperda
2005-05-18 22:03 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-18 22:15 ` Terence Ripperda
2005-05-18 22:42 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-19 3:57 ` Randy Dunlap
2005-05-13 22:40 ` H. Peter Anvin
2005-05-13 23:23 ` Dave Jones [this message]
2005-05-13 23:36 ` H. Peter Anvin
2005-05-13 23:42 ` Dave Jones
2005-05-13 23:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050513232357.GB13846@redhat.com \
--to=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox