Re: [PATCH v5 11/15] x86/mtrr: construct a memory map with cache modes

[Juergen Gross]

On 20.04.23 14:15, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2023 at 08:36:48AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > +static void rm_map_entry_at(int idx)
> > +{
> > +	cache_map_n--;
>
> Let's not call memmove() when cache_map_n == idx.
>
> Below too.
>
> Especially since cache_map + idx + 1 is not valid and I wouldn't want it
> getting prefetched from %rsi in the hw when there's no reason for it and
> also the RET even from a function which doesn't do anything, costs.

OTOH the additional compare to 0 has costs, too, and this cost is spent for
ALL calls, while the zero size call is a rather rare case.

Regarding "cache_map + idx + 1 is not valid": the standard clearly points
out that a call with size 0 is valid and won't copy anything [1].

> > +	memmove(cache_map + idx, cache_map + idx + 1,
> > +		sizeof(*cache_map) * (cache_map_n - idx));
> > +}
>
> Ok, first weird issue I encountered while playing with my carved out
> program to exercise this cache_map handling thing. I can share it if you
> want it - it is ugly but it works.
>
> So while rebuilding the map, I have these current regions in the map, at
> one point in time:
>
> Current map:
> 0: start: 0x0000000000000000, end: 0x0000000000100000, type: 0x0
> 1: start: 0x0000000100000000, end: 0x0000000820000000, type: 0x6
> 2: start: 0x000002f10000c000, end: 0x000003bf0000c000, type: 0x2
> 3: start: 0x000003bf0000c000, end: 0x00000d4b0000c000, type: 0x1
> 4: start: 0x00000d4b0000c000, end: 0x00019fc000001000, type: 0x0
> 5: start: 0x00019fc000001000, end: 0x0001df2d00001000, type: 0x2
>
> note entry #3.
>
> Now the next one it inserts is:
>
> add_map_entry_at: start: 0x3bf0000c000, end: 0xd4b0000c000, type: 0x0, idx: 3
>   merge_prev 0: prev->fixed: 0, prev->end: 0x3bf0000c000, prev->type: 0x2
>   merge_next: 1, next->fixed: 0, next->start: 0xd4b0000c000, next->type: 0x0
> add_map_entry_at: ret: 1
>
> Note how it is the same as entry number #3 - just a different type.
>
> What it ends up doing is, it simply overwrites the previous one and
> merges it with the next:
>
> Current map:
> 0: start: 0x0000000000000000, end: 0x0000000000100000, type: 0x0
> 1: start: 0x0000000100000000, end: 0x0000000820000000, type: 0x6
> 2: start: 0x000002f10000c000, end: 0x000003bf0000c000, type: 0x2
> 3: start: 0x000003bf0000c000, end: 0x00019fc000001000, type: 0x0
> 4: start: 0x00019fc000001000, end: 0x0001df2d00001000, type: 0x2

The map would reflect hardware behavior. Type 0 wins in case of overlapping
MTRRs.

> Now I think right about now we should've screamed loudly.

Now this is another requirement, right? Today's MTRR code wouldn't scream
either.

> I know I know, this should never happen, right? And firmware programming
> those MTRRs doesn't make mistakes...

At least we don't correct such mistakes today. Do you think we should change
that?

> However, we should be loud here and scream when a MTRR range disappears
> like that.
>
> Right?

TBH, I don't know.


Juergen

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature