Re: [PATCH] x86/PAT: have pat_enabled() properly reflect state when running on e.g. Xen

From: Juergen Gross
Date: Tue Jul 12 2022 - 11:30:12 EST

On 12.07.22 17:09, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 7/12/2022 9:32 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 12.07.22 15:22, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 7/12/2022 2:04 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 11.07.2022 19:41, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
Moreover... (please move to the bottom of the code snippet
for more information about my tests in the Xen PV environment...)

void init_cache_modes(void)
    u64 pat = 0;

    if (pat_cm_initialized)

    if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PAT)) {
         * CPU supports PAT. Set PAT table to be consistent with
         * PAT MSR. This case supports "nopat" boot option, and
         * virtual machine environments which support PAT without
         * MTRRs. In specific, Xen has unique setup to PAT MSR.
         * If PAT MSR returns 0, it is considered invalid and emulates
         * as No PAT.
        rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_CR_PAT, pat);

    if (!pat) {
         * No PAT. Emulate the PAT table that corresponds to the two
         * cache bits, PWT (Write Through) and PCD (Cache Disable).
         * This setup is also the same as the BIOS default setup.
         * PTE encoding:
         *       PCD
         *       |PWT  PAT
         *       ||    slot
         *       00    0    WB : _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_WB
         *       01    1    WT : _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_WT
         *       10    2    UC-: _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_UC_MINUS
         *       11    3    UC : _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_UC
         * NOTE: When WC or WP is used, it is redirected to UC- per
         * the default setup in __cachemode2pte_tbl[].
        pat = PAT(0, WB) | PAT(1, WT) | PAT(2, UC_MINUS) | PAT(3, UC) |
              PAT(4, WB) | PAT(5, WT) | PAT(6, UC_MINUS) | PAT(7, UC);

    else if (!pat_bp_enabled) {
         * In some environments, specifically Xen PV, PAT
         * initialization is skipped because MTRRs are
         * disabled even though PAT is available. In such
         * environments, set PAT to initialized and enabled to
         * correctly indicate to callers of pat_enabled() that
         * PAT is available and prevent PAT from being disabled.
        pat_bp_enabled = true;
        pr_info("x86/PAT: PAT enabled by init_cache_modes\n");


This function, patched with the extra 'else if' block, fixes the
regression on my Xen worksatation, and the pr_info message
"x86/PAT: PAT enabled by init_cache_modes" appears in the logs
when running this patched kernel in my Xen Dom0. This means
that in the Xen PV environment on my Xen Dom0 workstation,
rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_CR_PAT, pat) successfully tested for the presence
of PAT on the virtual CPU that Xen exposed to the Linux kernel on my
Xen Dom0 workstation. At least that is what I think my tests prove.

So why is this not a valid way to test for the existence of
PAT in the Xen PV environment? Are the existing comments
in init_cache_modes() about supporting both the case when
the "nopat" boot option is set and the specific case of Xen and
MTRR disabled wrong? My testing confirms those comments are

At the very least this ignores the possible "nopat" an admin may
have passed to the kernel.

I realize that. The patch I proposed here only fixes the regression. It
would be easy to also modify the patch to also observe the 'nopat"
setting. I think your patch had a force_pat_disable local variable that
is set if pat is disabled by the administrator with "nopat." With that
variable available, modifying the patch so in init_cache_modes we have:

     if (!pat || force_pat_disable) {
          * No PAT. Emulate the PAT table that corresponds to the two

Instead of:

     if (!pat) {
          * No PAT. Emulate the PAT table that corresponds to the two

would cause the kernel to respect the "nopat" setting by the administrator
in the Xen PV Dom0 environment.

Chuck, could you please send out a proper patch with your initial fix
(setting pat_bp_enabled) and the fix above?

I've chatted with Boris Petkov on IRC and he is fine with that.

That's great, I will submit a formal patch later today.

I agree this needs to be fixed up, because currently the code is very
confusing and the current variable names and function names do not
always accurately describe what they actually do in the code. That is
why I am working on a patch to do some re-factoring, which only consists
of function and variable name changes and comment changes to fix
the places where the comments in the code are misleading or incomplete.

Boris and I agreed to pursue my approach further by removing the
dependency between PAT and MTRR and to make this whole mess more

I will start to work on this as soon as possible, which will
probably be some time in September.

Good, I will look for your patches and try them out.

I think perhaps the most misnamed variable here is the  local
variable pat_disabled in memtypes.c and the most misnamed function is the
pat_disable function in memtypes.c. They should be named pat_init_disabled
and pat_init_disable, respectively, because they do not really disable
PAT in
the code but only prevent execution of the pat_init function. That
leaves open
the possibility for PAT to be enabled by init_cache_modes, which actually
occurs in the current code in the Xen PV Dom0 environment, but the current
code neglects to set pat_bp_enabled to true in that case. So we need a patch
to fix that in order to fix the regression.

In principle I agree, but you should be aware of my refactoring plans.

I will defer to you and stop working on this re-factoring effort, but I
will prepare a formal patch to fix the regression later today.

I do think Jan's point about respecting the administrator's "nopat" setting
should also be considered. AFAICT, the "nopat" option in current code

Yes, please add that, too. This was what I meant with "the fix above".

is also not being respected on the bare metal, and the patch to
init_cache_modes with a force_no_pat variable is also needed to
ensure "nopat" is respected on the bare metal, AFAICT.

Hmm, I don't see how the PAT MSR will be written on bare metal when "nopat"
has been specified.

I just tried it with a 5.19 kernel and it booted with the correct PAT

[ 0.000000] x86/PAT: PAT support disabled via boot option.
[ 0.000986] x86/PAT: Configuration [0-7]: WB WT UC- UC WB WT UC- UC


Attachment: OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature