Skip to contentSkip to conversation

x86: enable PAT for amd k8 and fam10h

PATCH In review Yinghai Lu 3 participants 4 messages Mar 24, 2008 – Mar 25, 2008

Subsystems (2)
x86 x86 MM
lore
Share & tools
lore

Yinghai Lu

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 x86: enable PAT for amd k8 and fam10h

[PATCH] x86: enable PAT for amd k8 and fam10h

make known_pat_cpu to think amd k8 and fam10h is ok too.

also make tom2 below to be WRBACK

Signed-off-by Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/generic.c +17 -0
index 011e07e..74ec2ea 100644
@@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ static struct fixed_range_block fixed_range_blocks[] = {
 static unsigned long smp_changes_mask;
 static struct mtrr_state mtrr_state = {};
 static int mtrr_state_set;
+static u64 tom2;
 
 #undef MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX
 #define MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX "mtrr."

@@ -138,6 +139,11 @@ u8 mtrr_type_lookup(u64 start, u64 end)
 		}
 	}
 
+	if (tom2) {
+		if (start >= (1ULL<<32) && (end < tom2))
+			return MTRR_TYPE_WRBACK;
+	}
+
 	if (prev_match != 0xFF)
 		return prev_match;
 

@@ -206,6 +212,15 @@ void __init get_mtrr_state(void)
 	mtrr_state.def_type = (lo & 0xff);
 	mtrr_state.enabled = (lo & 0xc00) >> 10;
 
+	if (amd_special_default_mtrr()) {
+		unsigned lo, hi;
+		/* TOP_MEM2 */
+		rdmsr(MSR_K8_TOP_MEM2, lo, hi);
+		tom2 = hi;
+		tom2 <<= 32;
+		tom2 |= lo;
+		tom2 &= 0xffffff8000000ULL;
+	}
 	if (mtrr_show) {
 		int high_width;
 

@@ -236,6 +251,8 @@ void __init get_mtrr_state(void)
 			else
 				printk(KERN_INFO "MTRR %u disabled\n", i);
 		}
+		if (tom2)
+			printk(KERN_INFO "TOM2: %016lx aka %ldM\n", tom2, tom2>>20);
 	}
 	mtrr_state_set = 1;
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c +1 -1
index a6450b3..6a1e278 100644
@@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ early_param("disable_mtrr_trim", disable_mtrr_trim_setup);
 #define Tom2Enabled (1U << 21)
 #define Tom2ForceMemTypeWB (1U << 22)
 
-static __init int amd_special_default_mtrr(void)
+int __init amd_special_default_mtrr(void)
 {
 	u32 l, h;
arch/x86/mm/pat.c +6 -0
index f74505f..a9e1a27 100644
@@ -49,6 +49,12 @@ static int pat_known_cpu(void)
 			return 1;
 		}
 	}
+	if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD &&
+	     boot_cpu_data.x86 >= 0xf && boot_cpu_data.x86 <= 0x11) {
+		if (cpu_has_pat) {
+			return 1;
+		}
+	}
 
 	pat_wc_enabled = 0;
 	printk(KERN_INFO "CPU and/or kernel does not support PAT.\n");
include/asm-x86/mtrr.h +1 -0
index ee17229..d3d2662 100644
@@ -99,6 +99,7 @@ extern void mtrr_centaur_report_mcr(int mcr, u32 lo, u32 hi);
 extern void mtrr_ap_init(void);
 extern void mtrr_bp_init(void);
 extern int mtrr_trim_uncached_memory(unsigned long end_pfn);
+extern int amd_special_default_mtrr(void);
 #  else
 static inline u8 mtrr_type_lookup(u64 addr, u64 end)
 {
reviewer
#1 lore raw
Quoted 13 lines · Yinghai Lu

[PATCH] x86: enable PAT for amd k8 and fam10h

make known_pat_cpu to think amd k8 and fam10h is ok too.

also make tom2 below to be WRBACK

arch/x86/mm/pat.c +0 -0
index f74505f..a9e1a27 100644
@@ -49,6 +49,12 @@ static int pat_known_cpu(void)
 			return 1;
 		}

arch/x86/mm/pat.c static int pat_known_cpu(void) · line 60

Quoted 10 lines
arch/x86/mm/pat.c +6 -0
 	}
+	if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD &&
+	     boot_cpu_data.x86 >= 0xf && boot_cpu_data.x86 <= 0x11) {
+		if (cpu_has_pat) {
+			return 1;
+		}
+	}
 
 	pat_wc_enabled = 0;
 	printk(KERN_INFO "CPU and/or kernel does not support PAT.\n");

This really should be handled through a CPU flag. Specifically, it should be handled by disabling the PAT flag if PAT is unusable or suspect of being unusable; it should *NOT* be stashed away in a completely separate piece of code.

-hpa

#2 lore raw
Quoted 23 lines · H. Peter Anvin
Quoted 22 lines · Yinghai Lu

[PATCH] x86: enable PAT for amd k8 and fam10h

make known_pat_cpu to think amd k8 and fam10h is ok too.

also make tom2 below to be WRBACK

arch/x86/mm/pat.c +6 -0
index f74505f..a9e1a27 100644
@@ -49,6 +49,12 @@ static int pat_known_cpu(void)
                      return 1;
              }
      }
+     if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD &&
+          boot_cpu_data.x86 >= 0xf && boot_cpu_data.x86 <= 0x11) {
+             if (cpu_has_pat) {
+                     return 1;
+             }
+     }
Quoted 7 lines

arch/x86/mm/pat.c static int pat_known_cpu(void) · line 60

Quoted 2 lines
arch/x86/mm/pat.c +0 -0
      pat_wc_enabled = 0;
      printk(KERN_INFO "CPU and/or kernel does not support PAT.\n");

This really should be handled through a CPU flag. Specifically, it should be handled by disabling the PAT flag if PAT is unusable or suspect of being unusable; it should *NOT* be stashed away in a completely separate piece of code.

PAT patches in x86.git latest, only support some intel CPUs.

        if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL &&
            (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0xF ||
             (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 6 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model >= 15))) {
                if (cpu_has_pat) {
                        return 1;
                }
        }

should be moved to setup_64.c?

YH

reviewer
#3 lore raw
Quoted 16 lines · Yinghai Lu
Quoted 5 lines

This really should be handled through a CPU flag. Specifically, it should be handled by disabling the PAT flag if PAT is unusable or suspect of being unusable; it should *NOT* be stashed away in a completely separate piece of code.

PAT patches in x86.git latest, only support some intel CPUs.

        if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL &&
            (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0xF ||
             (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 6 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model >= 15))) {
                if (cpu_has_pat) {
                        return 1;
                }
        }
Quoted 2 lines

should be moved to setup_64.c?

Yes, which in turn should be merged with the 32-bit code in cpu/*.c.

Personally I would prefer a blacklist rather than a whitelist, but that's nitpicking.

	-=hpa