Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: decouple pat and mtrr handling

[Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/15/22 10:25 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Today PAT is usable only with MTRR being active, with some nasty tweaks
> to make PAT usable when running as Xen PV guest, which doesn't support
> MTRR.
>
> The reason for this coupling is, that both, PAT MSR changes and MTRR
> changes, require a similar sequence and so full PAT support was added
> using the already available MTRR handling.
>
> Xen PV PAT handling can work without MTRR, as it just needs to consume
> the PAT MSR setting done by the hypervisor without the ability and need
> to change it. This in turn has resulted in a convoluted initialization
> sequence and wrong decisions regarding cache mode availability due to
> misguiding PAT availability flags.
>
> Fix all of that by allowing to use PAT without MTRR and by adding an
> environment dependent PAT init function.
>
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 5.17
> Fixes: bdd8b6c98239 ("drm/i915: replace X86_FEATURE_PAT with pat_enabled()")
> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
...
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c b/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
> index d5ef64ddd35e..3d4bc27ffebb 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
> ...
>  
> +void pat_init_noset(void)
> +{
> +     pat_bp_enabled = true;
> +     init_cache_modes();
> +}

This is what should fix the regression caused by commit
bdd8b6c98239 ("drm/i915: replace X86_FEATURE_PAT
with pat_enabled()"). Thanks for including this.

This function might need a better name. Does noset
refer to the fact that when we use this function, we do
not set or write to the PAT MSR? Maybe it should be
pat_init_noset_msr. Is Xen PV Dom0 the only case when
this function will be called or is it also for unprivileged
Xen PV domains? Then maybe it should be named
pat_init_xen_pv_dom0 or maybe just pat_init_xen_pv
if it is also used with unprivileged Xen PV domains. Or,
if you want to keep the name as pat_init_noset, maybe
it should be preceded by a comment clearly explaining
this function is currently only for the Xen PV and/or the Xen
PV Dom0 case when we don't write to the PAT MSR and we
still want to report PAT as enabled in those cases.

Chuck