On 7/14/2022 6:45 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> On 7/14/2022 6:33 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > On 7/14/2022 1:17 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > > On 7/5/22 6:57 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > > [CCing tglx, mingo, Boris and Juergen]
> > > >
> > > > On 04.07.22 14:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
On 7/14/2022 6:33 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> On 7/14/2022 1:17 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > On 7/5/22 6:57 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > [CCing tglx, mingo, Boris and Juergen]
> > >
> > > On 04.07.22 14:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 04.07.2022 13:58, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > >>
On 7/14/2022 1:17 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> On 7/5/22 6:57 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > [CCing tglx, mingo, Boris and Juergen]
> >
> > On 04.07.22 14:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 04.07.2022 13:58, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > >> On 25.05.22 10:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 28.04.2022
On 7/5/22 6:57 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> [CCing tglx, mingo, Boris and Juergen]
>
> On 04.07.22 14:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 04.07.2022 13:58, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> On 25.05.22 10:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 28.04.2022 16:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The latest with commit bdd
On 7/12/22 11:30 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 12.07.22 17:09, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > On 7/12/2022 9:32 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> On 12.07.22 15:22, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> >>> On 7/12/2022 2:04 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.07.2022 19:41, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > Moreove
On 12.07.22 17:09, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 7/12/2022 9:32 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 12.07.22 15:22, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 7/12/2022 2:04 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 11.07.2022 19:41, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
Moreover... (please move to the bottom of the code snippet
for more informatio
On 7/12/2022 9:32 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 12.07.22 15:22, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > On 7/12/2022 2:04 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 11.07.2022 19:41, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> >>> Moreover... (please move to the bottom of the code snippet
> >>> for more information about my tests in the Xe
On 12.07.22 15:22, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 7/12/2022 2:04 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 11.07.2022 19:41, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
Moreover... (please move to the bottom of the code snippet
for more information about my tests in the Xen PV environment...)
void init_cache_modes(void)
{
u64 p
On 7/12/2022 2:04 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.07.2022 19:41, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > Moreover... (please move to the bottom of the code snippet
> > for more information about my tests in the Xen PV environment...)
> >
> > void init_cache_modes(void)
> > {
> > u64 pat = 0;
> >
> > i
On 11.07.2022 19:41, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> Moreover... (please move to the bottom of the code snippet
> for more information about my tests in the Xen PV environment...)
>
> void init_cache_modes(void)
> {
> u64 pat = 0;
>
> if (pat_cm_initialized)
> return;
>
> if (boot_
On 11.07.22 19:41, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 7/11/2022 10:31 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 11.07.22 16:18, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 7/5/22 12:14 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:56:36PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
Re-using pat_disabled like you do in your suggestion below
On 7/11/2022 10:31 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 11.07.22 16:18, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > On 7/5/22 12:14 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:56:36PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Re-using pat_disabled like you do in your suggestion below won't
> >>> work, because mtrr_b
On 11.07.22 16:18, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 7/5/22 12:14 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:56:36PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
Re-using pat_disabled like you do in your suggestion below won't
work, because mtrr_bp_init() calls pat_disable() when MTRRs
appear to be disabled (
On 7/5/22 12:14 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:56:36PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Re-using pat_disabled like you do in your suggestion below won't
> > work, because mtrr_bp_init() calls pat_disable() when MTRRs
> > appear to be disabled (from the kernel's view). The goal
On 7/5/22 12:14 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:56:36PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Re-using pat_disabled like you do in your suggestion below won't
> > work, because mtrr_bp_init() calls pat_disable() when MTRRs
> > appear to be disabled (from the kernel's view). The goal
On 7/5/22 12:14 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:56:36PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Re-using pat_disabled like you do in your suggestion below won't
> > work, because mtrr_bp_init() calls pat_disable() when MTRRs
> > appear to be disabled (from the kernel's view). The goal
On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 08:38:44AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Well, right now the pvops hook for Xen swallows #GP anyway (wrongly
> so imo, but any of my earlier pointing out of that has been left
> unheard, despite even the code comments there saying "It may be worth
> changing that").
Oh great.
On 06.07.2022 19:01, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 08:17:41AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Sure, but that alone won't help.
>
> Well, the MTRR code looks at X86_FEATURE_MTRR. If Xen doesn't expose the
> MTRRs, then that bit should be clear in the CPUID the guest sees.
>
> So in
On 05.07.2022 18:14, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:56:36PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Re-using pat_disabled like you do in your suggestion below won't
>> work, because mtrr_bp_init() calls pat_disable() when MTRRs
>> appear to be disabled (from the kernel's view). The goal i
On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:56:36PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Re-using pat_disabled like you do in your suggestion below won't
> work, because mtrr_bp_init() calls pat_disable() when MTRRs
> appear to be disabled (from the kernel's view). The goal is to
> honor "nopat" without honoring any other c
On 05.07.2022 17:04, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 04:50:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
>> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@
>>
>> static bool __read_mostly pat_bp_initialized;
>> static bool __read_mostly pat_disabled = !
On 05.07.22 15:36, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 12:57:18PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Side note: Juergen Gross recently posted related patches in this code
area to fix some other problems (regressions?), but his efforts look
stalled, too:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/ddb0cc
On 05.07.2022 12:57, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> [CCing tglx, mingo, Boris and Juergen]
>
> On 04.07.22 14:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 04.07.2022 13:58, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> On 25.05.22 10:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 28.04.2022 16:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The latest with commit bdd8
[CCing tglx, mingo, Boris and Juergen]
On 04.07.22 14:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.07.2022 13:58, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 25.05.22 10:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 28.04.2022 16:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
The latest with commit bdd8b6c98239 ("drm/i915: replace X86_FEATURE_PAT
with p
On 04.07.2022 13:58, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 25.05.22 10:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 28.04.2022 16:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> The latest with commit bdd8b6c98239 ("drm/i915: replace X86_FEATURE_PAT
>>> with pat_enabled()") pat_enabled() returning false (because of PAT
>>> initialization bein
On 25.05.22 10:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 28.04.2022 16:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The latest with commit bdd8b6c98239 ("drm/i915: replace X86_FEATURE_PAT
>> with pat_enabled()") pat_enabled() returning false (because of PAT
>> initialization being suppressed in the absence of MTRRs being announced
On 28.04.2022 16:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The latest with commit bdd8b6c98239 ("drm/i915: replace X86_FEATURE_PAT
> with pat_enabled()") pat_enabled() returning false (because of PAT
> initialization being suppressed in the absence of MTRRs being announced
> to be available) has become a problem: T
On 4/28/22 10:50 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
The latest with commit bdd8b6c98239 ("drm/i915: replace X86_FEATURE_PAT
with pat_enabled()") pat_enabled() returning false (because of PAT
initialization being suppressed in the absence of MTRRs being announced
to be available) has become a problem: The i91
On 03.05.22 14:54, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 28.04.22 16:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
The latest with commit bdd8b6c98239 ("drm/i915: replace X86_FEATURE_PAT
with pat_enabled()") pat_enabled() returning false (because of PAT
initialization being suppressed in the absence of MTRRs being announced
to be a
On 28.04.22 16:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
The latest with commit bdd8b6c98239 ("drm/i915: replace X86_FEATURE_PAT
with pat_enabled()") pat_enabled() returning false (because of PAT
initialization being suppressed in the absence of MTRRs being announced
to be available) has become a problem: The i915
The latest with commit bdd8b6c98239 ("drm/i915: replace X86_FEATURE_PAT
with pat_enabled()") pat_enabled() returning false (because of PAT
initialization being suppressed in the absence of MTRRs being announced
to be available) has become a problem: The i915 driver now fails to
initialize when runn
31 matches
Mail list logo
