On 15.07.22 04:07, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
On 7/14/2022 1:30 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 13.07.22 03:36, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
The commit 99c13b8c8896d7bcb92753bf ("x86/mm/pat: Don't report PAT on CPUs that don't support it") incorrectly failed to account for the case in init_cache_modes() when CPUs do support PAT and falsely reported PAT to be disabled when in fact PAT is enabled. In some environments, notably in Xen PV domains, MTRR is disabled but PAT is still enabled, and that is the case that the aforementioned commit failed to account for.
As an unfortunate consequnce, the pat_enabled() function currently does not correctly report that PAT is enabled in such environments. The fix is implemented in init_cache_modes() by setting pat_bp_enabled to true in init_cache_modes() for the case that commit 99c13b8c8896d7bcb92753bf ("x86/mm/pat: Don't report PAT on CPUs that don't support it") failed to account for.
This approach arranges for pat_enabled() to return true in the Xen PV environment without undermining the rest of PAT MSR management logic that considers PAT to be disabled: Specifically, no writes to the PAT MSR should occur.
This patch fixes a regression that some users are experiencing with Linux as a Xen Dom0 driving particular Intel graphics devices by correctly reporting to the Intel i915 driver that PAT is enabled where previously it was falsely reporting that PAT is disabled. Some users are experiencing system hangs in Xen PV Dom0 and all users on Xen PV Dom0 are experiencing reduced graphics performance because the keying of the use of WC mappings to pat_enabled() (see arch_can_pci_mmap_wc()) means that in particular graphics frame buffer accesses are quite a bit less performant than possible without this patch.
Also, with the current code, in the Xen PV environment, PAT will not be disabled if the administrator sets the "nopat" boot option. Introduce a new boolean variable, pat_force_disable, to forcibly disable PAT when the administrator sets the "nopat" option to override the default behavior of using the PAT configuration that Xen has provided.
For the new boolean to live in .init.data, init_cache_modes() also needs moving to .init.text (where it could/should have lived already before).
Fixes: 99c13b8c8896d7bcb92753bf ("x86/mm/pat: Don't report PAT on CPUs that don't support it")
BTW, "submitting-patches.rst" says it should just be "the first 12 characters of the SHA-1 ID"
Actually it says "at least",
/me looks a bit confused, as he quoted above directly from that file
Ohh, that "at least" is in a different section of the document. :-D For the fixes tag is explicitly "12 characters":
``` If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using git bisect, please use the ‘Fixes:’ tag with the first 12 characters of the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary. ```
so more that 12 is It is probably safest to put the entire SHA-1 ID in because of the possibility of a collision.
Yes, sure, but it's a little mess if everybody uses something different and 12 characters is what was agreed on as "good enough" for now.
At least that's how I understand what submitting-patches.rst.
Co-developed-by: Jan Beulich jbeulich@suse.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Chuck Zmudzinski brchuckz@aol.com
Sorry, have to ask: is this supposed to finally fix this regression? https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/YnHK1Z3o99eMXsVK@mail-itl/
Yes that's the first report I saw to lkml about this isssue.
Thx for confirming.
So if I submit a v3 I will include that.
Thx.
But my patch does not have a sign-off from the Co-developer as I mentioned in a message earlier today, and the discussion that has ensued leads me to think a better solution is to just revert the commit in the i915 driver instead, and leave the bigger questions for Juergen Gross and his plans to re-work the x86/PAT code in September, as he said on this thread in the last couple of days. This patch is dead now, as far as I can tell, because the Co-developer is not cooperating.
k, thx for the quick summary, this whole thing is a bit hard to follow for me: I can only briefly look into most regressions, as there is only so much time in a day...
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.