[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] x86/mm: Avoid hard-coding PAT in get_page_from_l1e()
On 20.12.2022 02:07, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > get_page_from_l1e() relied on Xen's choice of PAT, which is brittle in > the face of future PAT changes. Instead, compute the actual cacheability > used by the CPU and switch on that, as this will work no matter what PAT > Xen uses. > > No functional change intended. This code is itself questionable and may > be removed in the future, but removing it would be an observable > behavior change and so is out of scope for this patch series. > > Signed-off-by: Demi Marie Obenour <demi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Changes since v4: > - Do not add new pte_flags_to_cacheability() helper, as this code may be > removed in the near future and so adding a new helper for it is a bad > idea. > - Do not BUG() in the event of an unexpected cacheability. This cannot > happen, but it is simpler to force such types to UC than to prove that > the BUG() is not reachable. > > Changes since v3: > - Compute and use the actual cacheability as seen by the processor. > > Changes since v2: > - Improve commit message. > --- > xen/arch/x86/mm.c | 14 ++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c > index > 78b1972e4170cacccc9c37c6e64e76e66a7da87f..dba6c77ef2f7ed7fcb7f7e526583ccadd35e62cc > 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c > @@ -959,14 +959,16 @@ get_page_from_l1e( > flip = _PAGE_RW; > } > > - switch ( l1f & PAGE_CACHE_ATTRS ) > + switch ( 0xFF & (XEN_MSR_PAT >> (8 * pte_flags_to_cacheattr(l1f))) ) > { > - case 0: /* WB */ > - flip |= _PAGE_PWT | _PAGE_PCD; > + case X86_MT_UC: > + case X86_MT_UCM: > + case X86_MT_WC: > + /* not cacheable */ > break; > - case _PAGE_PWT: /* WT */ > - case _PAGE_PWT | _PAGE_PAT: /* WP */ > - flip |= _PAGE_PCD | (l1f & _PAGE_PAT); > + default: > + /* cacheable */ > + flip |= ((l1f & PAGE_CACHE_ATTRS) ^ _PAGE_UC); > break; In v4 the comment here was "cacheable, force to UC". The latter aspect is quite relevant (and iirc also what Andrew had asked for to have as a comment). But with this now being the default case, the comment (in either this or the earlier form) would become stale. A forward compatible way of wording this would e.g. be "force any other type to UC". With an adjustment along these lines (which I think could be done while committing) Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> Jan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |