Re: [PATCH v1 06/47] mtrr: add __arch_phys_wc_add()

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 02:23:16PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:58:02PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 04:48:46PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
>> >> >> <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ideally on systems using PAT we can expect a swift
>> >> >> > transition away from MTRR. There can be a few exceptions
>> >> >> > to this, one is where device drivers are known to exist
>> >> >> > on PATs with errata, another situation is observed on
>> >> >> > old device drivers where devices had combined MMIO
>> >> >> > register access with whatever area they typically
>> >> >> > later wanted to end up using MTRR for on the same
>> >> >> > PCI BAR. This situation can still be addressed by
>> >> >> > splitting up ioremap'd PCI BAR into two ioremap'd
>> >> >> > calls, one for MMIO registers, and another for whatever
>> >> >> > is desirable for write-combining -- in order to
>> >> >> > accomplish this though quite a bit of driver
>> >> >> > restructuring is required.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Device drivers which are known to require large
>> >> >> > amount of re-work in order to split ioremap'd areas
>> >> >> > can use __arch_phys_wc_add() to avoid regressions
>> >> >> > when PAT is enabled.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > For a good example driver where things are neatly
>> >> >> > split up on a PCI BAR refer the infiniband qib
>> >> >> > driver. For a good example of a driver where good
>> >> >> > amount of work is required refer to the infiniband
>> >> >> > ipath driver.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This is *only* a transitive API -- and as such no new
>> >> >> > drivers are ever expected to use this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What's the exact layout that this helps?  I'm sceptical that this can
>> >> >> ever be correct.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is there some awful driver that has a large ioremap that's supposed to
>> >> >> contain multiple different memtypes?
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, I cc'd you just now on one where I made changes on a driver which uses one
>> >> > PCI with mixed memtypes and uses MTRR to hole in WC. A transition to
>> >> > arch_phys_wc_add() is therefore not possible if PAT is enabled as it would
>> >> > regress those drivers by making the MTRR WC hole trick non functional.
>> >> > The changes are non trivial and so in this series I supplied changes on
>> >> > one driver only to show the effort required. The other drivers which
>> >> > required this were:
>> >> >
>> >> > Driver          File
>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > fusion          drivers/message/fusion/mptbase.c
>> >> > ivtv            drivers/media/pci/ivtv/ivtvfb.c
>> >> > ipath           drivers/infiniband/hw/ipath/ipath_driver.c
>> >> >
>> >> > This series makes those drivers use __arch_phys_wc_add() more as a
>> >> > transitory phase in hopes we can address the proper split as with the
>> >> > atyfb illustrates. For ipath the changes required have a nice template
>> >> > with the qib driver as they share very similar driver structure, the
>> >> > qib driver *did* do the nice split.
>> >> >
>> >> >> If so, can we ioremap + set_page_xyz instead?
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not sure I see which call we'd use.  Care to provide an example patch
>> >> > alternative for the atyfb as a case in point alternative to the work required
>> >> > to do the split?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I'm still confused.  Would it be insufficient to ioremap_nocache the
>> >> whole thing and then call set_memory_wc on parts of it?  (Sorry,
>> >> set_page_xyz was a typo.)
>> >
>> > I think that would be a sexy alternative.
>> >
>> > In this driver's case the thing is a bit messy as it not only used
>> > the WC MTRR for a hole but it also then used a UC MTRR on top of
>> > it all, so since I already tried to address the split, and if we address
>> > the power of 2 woes, I think it'd be best to try to remove the UC MTRR
>> > and just avoid set_page_wc() in this driver's case, but for the other cases
>> > (fusion, ivtv, ipath) I think this makes sense.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>>
>> Once that WC MTRR is in place, I think you really need UC and not UC-
>> if you want to override it.  Otherwise I agree with all of this.
>
> Do you mean that the UC MTRR work around that was in place might not
> have really been effective? Not quite sure what you mean. I don't think
> I follow.

I mean that the UC MTRR that overrides the WC MTRR was probably fine
(I hope smaller MTRRs override larger MTRRs).  But we should just
ditch UC MTRRs entirely, and setting UC in the page tables would work
on all CPUs *if we supported that*.  We'd need to add a couple trivial
helpers to do that.

--Andy

>
>   Luis



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/