[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] MTRR: clear DramModEn bit of sys_cfg MSR


  • To: Wei Huang <wei.huang2@xxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:12:39 +0100
  • Cc: "'xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:13:24 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=hH+VKu378pU86LGOOcVoEf84sNjpbEqMy8xbXlL7IkAIxP8TX7ivRGdxVm/3zAUvq+ xXvKtimMwP74xB0r+EFD8IrKu6eky1nxtliBC+2uWwnoWmxorsRzU67vWTPCft1Tb/BY /Yh/XEr2B2+Cr/WUhrMTC2gNWrEHPna/Wcui8=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AcvzvQw+hdk/jyKW8ESfHNjvPIC0Eg==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] MTRR: clear DramModEn bit of sys_cfg MSR

Looks good, thanks!

 -- Keir

On 05/04/2011 18:26, "Wei Huang" <wei.huang2@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Sorry for the indention issue... I agree that it is better to move
> check-and_fixup code to init_amd() function. See the new patch.
> 
> My understanding is that RdMem and WrMem are never going to become 1:
> BIOS are supposed to set sys_cfg[DramModEn] bit to 0 before OS takes
> over. As a result, RdMem and WrMem are read as 0 in fixed MTRRs. Unless
> Xen turn these bits to 1 (which I don't see from the code),
> k8_enable_fixed_iorrs() is useless. My 2nd patch removes
> k8_enable_fixed_iorrs(). If you have concern, we don't have to apply
> this patch. But I don't think we shouldn't move it to amd.c.
> k8_enable_fixed_iorrs() is unrelated in that file.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Wei
> 
> On 04/05/2011 06:51 AM, Keir Fraser wrote:
>> On 04/04/2011 23:23, "Wei Huang"<wei.huang2@xxxxxxx>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Some buggy BIOS might set sys_cfg DramModEn bit to 1, which can cause
>>> unexpected behavior on AMD platforms. This patch clears DramModEn bit.
>>> The patch was derived from upstream kernel patch (see
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11425/).
>> This patch also removes k8_enable_fixed_iorrs(), and it's not clear why.
>> That would at least belong in a separate patch, but I would think we don't
>> want to delete that code anyway.
>> 
>> The indentation is wrong (spaces in a file that is hard-tab-indented). And
>> the printk is probably unnecessary -- at most you should print it once
>> rather than potentially for every core brought up.
>> 
>> But further, I don't see why you need to hang off {get,set}_fixed_ranges at
>> all. Why not do this check-and-fixup in cpu/amd.c:init_amd()? It's a handy
>> early-cpu-bringup amd-specific function which is rather designed ofr this
>> kind of purpose. The k8_enable_fixed_iorrs() work could better be done in
>> the same place, too (perhaps move it in a separate patch?).
>> 
>>   -- Keir
>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Huang<wei.huang2@xxxxxxx>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> 
>> 
> 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.