Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/pat: add functions to query specific cache mode availability

[Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/20/2022 2:05 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.05.2022 06:43, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > On 5/4/22 5:14 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > On 04.05.22 10:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 03.05.2022 15:22, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > > Some drivers are using pat_enabled() in order to test availability of
> > > > > special caching modes (WC and UC-). This will lead to false negatives
> > > > > in case the system was booted e.g. with the "nopat" variant and the
> > > > > BIOS did setup the PAT MSR supporting the queried mode, or if the
> > > > > system is running as a Xen PV guest.
> > > > ...
> > > > > Add test functions for those caching modes instead and use them at the
> > > > > appropriate places.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: bdd8b6c98239 ("drm/i915: replace X86_FEATURE_PAT with
> > > > > pat_enabled()")
> > > > > Fixes: ae749c7ab475 ("PCI: Add arch_can_pci_mmap_wc() macro")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h
> > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h
> > > > > @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ int pcibios_set_irq_routing(struct pci_dev *dev,
> > > > > int pin, int irq);
> > > > >        #define HAVE_PCI_MMAP
> > > > > -#define arch_can_pci_mmap_wc()    pat_enabled()
> > > > > +#define arch_can_pci_mmap_wc()    x86_has_pat_wc()
> > > > Besides this and ...
> > > >
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_mman.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_mman.c
> > > > > @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ i915_gem_mmap_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void
> > > > > *data,
> > > > >        if (args->flags & ~(I915_MMAP_WC))
> > > > >            return -EINVAL;
> > > > >    -    if (args->flags & I915_MMAP_WC && !pat_enabled())
> > > > > +    if (args->flags & I915_MMAP_WC && !x86_has_pat_wc())
> > > > >            return -ENODEV;
> > > > >          obj = i915_gem_object_lookup(file, args->handle);
> > > > > @@ -757,7 +757,7 @@ i915_gem_dumb_mmap_offset(struct drm_file *file,
> > > > >          if (HAS_LMEM(to_i915(dev)))
> > > > >            mmap_type = I915_MMAP_TYPE_FIXED;
> > > > > -    else if (pat_enabled())
> > > > > +    else if (x86_has_pat_wc())
> > > > >            mmap_type = I915_MMAP_TYPE_WC;
> > > > >        else if (!i915_ggtt_has_aperture(to_gt(i915)->ggtt))
> > > > >            return -ENODEV;
> > > > > @@ -813,7 +813,7 @@ i915_gem_mmap_offset_ioctl(struct drm_device
> > > > > *dev, void *data,
> > > > >            break;
> > > > >          case I915_MMAP_OFFSET_WC:
> > > > > -        if (!pat_enabled())
> > > > > +        if (!x86_has_pat_wc())
> > > > >                return -ENODEV;
> > > > >            type = I915_MMAP_TYPE_WC;
> > > > >            break;
> > > > > @@ -823,7 +823,7 @@ i915_gem_mmap_offset_ioctl(struct drm_device
> > > > > *dev, void *data,
> > > > >            break;
> > > > >          case I915_MMAP_OFFSET_UC:
> > > > > -        if (!pat_enabled())
> > > > > +        if (!x86_has_pat_uc_minus())
> > > > >                return -ENODEV;
> > > > >            type = I915_MMAP_TYPE_UC;
> > > > >            break;
> > > > ... these uses there are several more. You say nothing on why those want
> > > > leaving unaltered. When preparing my earlier patch I did inspect them
> > > > and came to the conclusion that these all would also better observe the
> > > > adjusted behavior (or else I couldn't have left pat_enabled() as the
> > > > only
> > > > predicate). In fact, as said in the description of my earlier patch, in
> > > > my debugging I did find the use in i915_gem_object_pin_map() to be the
> > > > problematic one, which you leave alone.
> > > Oh, I missed that one, sorry.
> > That is why your patch would not fix my Haswell unless
> > it also touches i915_gem_object_pin_map() in
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_pages.c
> >
> > > I wanted to be rather defensive in my changes, but I agree at least the
> > > case in arch_phys_wc_add() might want to be changed, too.
> > I think your approach needs to be more aggressive so it will fix
> > all the known false negatives introduced by bdd8b6c98239
> > such as the one in i915_gem_object_pin_map().
> >
> > I looked at Jan's approach and I think it would fix the issue
> > with my Haswell as long as I don't use the nopat option. I
> > really don't have a strong opinion on that question, but I
> > think the nopat option as a Linux kernel option, as opposed
> > to a hypervisor option, should only affect the kernel, and
> > if the hypervisor provides the pat feature, then the kernel
> > should not override that,
> Hmm, why would the kernel not be allowed to override that? Such
> an override would affect only the single domain where the
> kernel runs; other domains could take their own decisions.
>
> Also, for the sake of completeness: "nopat" used when running on
> bare metal has the same bad effect on system boot, so there
> pretty clearly is an error cleanup issue in the i915 driver. But
> that's orthogonal, and I expect the maintainers may not even care
> (but tell us "don't do that then").
>
> Jan
>
> > but because of the confusion,
As I just wrote earlier, the confusion is whether or not "nopat"
means the kernel drivers will not use pat even if the firmware
and hypervisor provides it. I think you are correct to
point out that is the way the i915 driver behaved with the nopat
option before bdd8b6c98239 was applied, with the same
bad effects on bare metal as with the hypervisor. I think perhaps
dealing with the nopat option to fix bdd8b6c98239 is a solution in
search of a problem, at least as regards the i915 driver.

The only problem we have, as I see it, is with a false negative
when the nopat option is *not* enabled. But the forced disabling
of pat in Jan's patch when the nopat option is enabled is probably
needed if the goal of the patch is to preserve the same
behavior of the i915 driver that it had before bdd8b6c98239
was applied.

In any case, especially if we do include Jan's aggressive approach
of disabling pat with the nopat option and preserving the same bad
behavior we had with nopat before bdd8b6c98239 was applied, the
i915 driver should log a warning when pat is disabled. Right now,
the driver returns -ENODEV with the problem in
i915_gem_object_pin_map(), but it does not log an error. The only
log message I get now is the add_taint_for_CI in intel_gt_init
which was not very helpful information for debugging
this problem. It was only the starting point of a longer debugging
process because of a lack of error log messages in the i915 driver.

Chuck