Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-24 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Eric W. Biederman wrote: | WB WT WC UC ---+--- WB | WB WT WC UC WT | WT WT UC UC WC | WC UC WC UC UC | UC UC UC UC With the current PAT encoding: WB = 00 WT = 01 WC = 10 UC = 11 ... this is simply a bitwise OR. This makes sense, since one of the bits denies

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-24 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Siddha, Suresh B wrote: >> >> But then, this will cause an attribute conflicit. Old one was specifying >> WB in PAT (ioremap with noflags) and the new ioremap specifies UC. >> >> As Linus mentioned, main problem is to figure out the correct attribute

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-24 Thread Eric W. Biederman
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Siddha, Suresh B wrote: But then, this will cause an attribute conflicit. Old one was specifying WB in PAT (ioremap with noflags) and the new ioremap specifies UC. As Linus mentioned, main problem is to figure out the correct attribute for ioremap()

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-24 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Eric W. Biederman wrote: | WB WT WC UC ---+--- WB | WB WT WC UC WT | WT WT UC UC WC | WC UC WC UC UC | UC UC UC UC With the current PAT encoding: WB = 00 WT = 01 WC = 10 UC = 11 ... this is simply a bitwise OR. This makes sense, since one of the bits denies

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-18 Thread Balbir Singh
a, Suresh B; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > >Barnes, Jesse; [EMAIL PROTE

RE: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-18 Thread Pallipadi, Venkatesh
PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >Barnes, Jesse; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental >changes and bug fixes > &g

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-18 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:04:10PM -0800, Venki Pallipadi wrote: > > Below is another potential fix for the problem here. Going through ACPI > ioremap usages, we found at one place the mapping is cached for possible > optimization reason and not unmapped later. Patch below always unmaps > ioremap

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-18 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:04:10PM -0800, Venki Pallipadi wrote: Below is another potential fix for the problem here. Going through ACPI ioremap usages, we found at one place the mapping is cached for possible optimization reason and not unmapped later. Patch below always unmaps ioremap at

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-18 Thread Balbir Singh
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Barnes, Jesse; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental

RE: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-18 Thread Pallipadi, Venkatesh
]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Barnes, Jesse; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:04:10PM -0800, Venki Pallipadi

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andi Kleen
> As Linus mentioned, main problem is to figure out the correct attribute > for ioremap() which doesn't specify the actual attribute to be used. In this case the correct attribute is the one of the underlying MTRR. And if it conflicts with some other mapping that overrides an MTRR the driver was

RE: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Pallipadi, Venkatesh
PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >Barnes, Jesse; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental >changes and bug fixes > &g

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:04:10PM -0800, Venki Pallipadi wrote: > > Below is another potential fix for the problem here. Going through ACPI > ioremap usages, we found at one place the mapping is cached for possible > optimization reason and not unmapped later. Patch below always unmaps > ioremap

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:35:51PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andreas Herrmann3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'll check this asap > > > > So, now that I've avoided this tiny NULL-pointer-dereference, the > > system boots fine as well with your (slightly modified) patch. See > >

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Venki Pallipadi
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:52:43PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann3 wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:15:05PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Andreas Herrmann3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:42:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > * Siddha, Suresh B

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:15:05PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andreas Herrmann3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:42:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Siddha, Suresh B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100,

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andreas Herrmann3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll check this asap > > So, now that I've avoided this tiny NULL-pointer-dereference, the > system boots fine as well with your (slightly modified) patch. See > dmesg attached. for now i applied your ioremap_uncached() patch and removed my

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:42:28PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann3 wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Andreas Herrmann3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > Meanwhile I have figured out that it is some ACPI stuff that maps the > > > page

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:42:28PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann3 wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Andreas Herrmann3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > Meanwhile I have figured out that it is some ACPI stuff that maps the > > > page

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andreas Herrmann3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:42:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Siddha, Suresh B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > but in general we must be robust enough in this

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Andreas Herrmann3 wrote: Yes, we must fix all aliases or reject the conflicting mapping. But fixing all aliases might not be that easy. (I've just seen a panic when using your patch ;-( Avoiding inconsistent aliases is definitely fundamental to supporting PAT. -hpa -- To

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andreas Herrmann3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > but i have not seen this message in your boot log. Could you boot > > with early_ioremap_debug and send us the dmesg - i'm curious which > > ACPI tables are actively mapped while those devices are initialized. > > Hmm, early_ioremap_debug

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:42:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Siddha, Suresh B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > but in general we must be robust enough in this case and just degrade > > > any overlapping page to UC (and

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Siddha, Suresh B wrote: But then, this will cause an attribute conflicit. Old one was specifying WB in PAT (ioremap with noflags) and the new ioremap specifies UC. As Linus mentioned, main problem is to figure out the correct attribute for ioremap() which doesn't specify the actual attribute

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andreas Herrmann3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes. > > > > Meanwhile I have figured out that it is some ACPI stuff that maps the > > page cached. I've changed the ioremap's in drivers/acpi/osl.c to > > ioremap_nocache.

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Siddha, Suresh B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > but in general we must be robust enough in this case and just degrade > > any overlapping page to UC (and emit a warning perhaps) - instead of > > failing the ioremap and thus

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Siddha, Suresh B
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > but in general we must be robust enough in this case and just degrade > any overlapping page to UC (and emit a warning perhaps) - instead of > failing the ioremap and thus failing the driver (and the bootup). But then, this will

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Andreas Herrmann3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes. > > > > Meanwhile I have figured out that it is some ACPI stuff that maps the > > page cached. I've changed the ioremap's in drivers/acpi/osl.c to > > ioremap_nocache. See attached patch. > >

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andreas Herrmann3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes. > > Meanwhile I have figured out that it is some ACPI stuff that maps the > page cached. I've changed the ioremap's in drivers/acpi/osl.c to > ioremap_nocache. See attached patch. > > Now the machine boots without conflicts. ah, nice!

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 09:36:00PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andreas Herrmann3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > For the failed devices I get: > > > > sata_sil :00:12.0: version 2.3 > > ACPI: PCI Interrupt :00:12.0[A] -> GSI 22 (level, low) -> IRQ 22 > > ioremap_nocache: addr

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > swapper:1 conflicting cache attribute c0403000-c0404000 > > > uncached<->default > > > ACPI: PCI interrupt for device :00:12.0 disabled > > The correct behaviour probably would be to go with the most restrictive > caching behaviour, i.e.

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> as an intermediate fix, how about following the attribute of the >> already existing mapping, instead of rejecting the ioremap due to the >> conflict? I.e. something like below? > > The correct behaviour probably would be to go with the most >

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I.e. something like below? or the one below. (it even builds) Ingo --- arch/x86/mm/pat.c |7 ++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: linux-x86.q/arch/x86/mm/pat.c

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Ingo Molnar wrote: * Andreas Herrmann3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For the failed devices I get: sata_sil :00:12.0: version 2.3 ACPI: PCI Interrupt :00:12.0[A] -> GSI 22 (level, low) -> IRQ 22 ioremap_nocache: addr c0403000, size 200 swapper:1 conflicting cache attribute

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andreas Herrmann3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For the failed devices I get: > > sata_sil :00:12.0: version 2.3 > ACPI: PCI Interrupt :00:12.0[A] -> GSI 22 (level, low) -> IRQ 22 > ioremap_nocache: addr c0403000, size 200 > swapper:1 conflicting cache attribute

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 08:12:11PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann3 wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 12:33:28PM -0800, Venki Pallipadi wrote: > > I guess the conflict for sata is > ioremap: addr c0403104, size fc > ioremap_nocache: addr c0403000, size 200 > > But where does the conflict for

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 12:33:28PM -0800, Venki Pallipadi wrote: > This ioremap failing seems to be the real problem. This can be due to > new tracking of ioremaps introduced by PAT patches. We do not allow > conflicting ioremaps to same region. Probably that is happening > in both Sound and sata

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 12:33:28PM -0800, Venki Pallipadi wrote: This ioremap failing seems to be the real problem. This can be due to new tracking of ioremaps introduced by PAT patches. We do not allow conflicting ioremaps to same region. Probably that is happening in both Sound and sata

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 08:12:11PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann3 wrote: On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 12:33:28PM -0800, Venki Pallipadi wrote: snip I guess the conflict for sata is ioremap: addr c0403104, size fc ioremap_nocache: addr c0403000, size 200 But where does the conflict for

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andreas Herrmann3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the failed devices I get: sata_sil :00:12.0: version 2.3 ACPI: PCI Interrupt :00:12.0[A] - GSI 22 (level, low) - IRQ 22 ioremap_nocache: addr c0403000, size 200 swapper:1 conflicting cache attribute c0403000-c0404000

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I.e. something like below? or the one below. (it even builds) Ingo --- arch/x86/mm/pat.c |7 ++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: linux-x86.q/arch/x86/mm/pat.c

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Ingo Molnar wrote: * Andreas Herrmann3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the failed devices I get: sata_sil :00:12.0: version 2.3 ACPI: PCI Interrupt :00:12.0[A] - GSI 22 (level, low) - IRQ 22 ioremap_nocache: addr c0403000, size 200 swapper:1 conflicting cache attribute

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andreas Herrmann3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. Meanwhile I have figured out that it is some ACPI stuff that maps the page cached. I've changed the ioremap's in drivers/acpi/osl.c to ioremap_nocache. See attached patch. Now the machine boots without conflicts. ah, nice! but in

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote: swapper:1 conflicting cache attribute c0403000-c0404000 uncached-default ACPI: PCI interrupt for device :00:12.0 disabled The correct behaviour probably would be to go with the most restrictive caching behaviour, i.e. uncached in

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: as an intermediate fix, how about following the attribute of the already existing mapping, instead of rejecting the ioremap due to the conflict? I.e. something like below? The correct behaviour probably would be to go with the most restrictive

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 09:36:00PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Andreas Herrmann3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the failed devices I get: sata_sil :00:12.0: version 2.3 ACPI: PCI Interrupt :00:12.0[A] - GSI 22 (level, low) - IRQ 22 ioremap_nocache: addr c0403000, size

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Andreas Herrmann3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. Meanwhile I have figured out that it is some ACPI stuff that maps the page cached. I've changed the ioremap's in drivers/acpi/osl.c to ioremap_nocache. See attached patch. Now the

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Andreas Herrmann3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. Meanwhile I have figured out that it is some ACPI stuff that maps the page cached. I've changed the ioremap's in drivers/acpi/osl.c to ioremap_nocache. See attached

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Siddha, Suresh B
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: but in general we must be robust enough in this case and just degrade any overlapping page to UC (and emit a warning perhaps) - instead of failing the ioremap and thus failing the driver (and the bootup). But then, this will cause

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: but in general we must be robust enough in this case and just degrade any overlapping page to UC (and emit a warning perhaps) - instead of failing the ioremap and thus failing the

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Siddha, Suresh B wrote: But then, this will cause an attribute conflicit. Old one was specifying WB in PAT (ioremap with noflags) and the new ioremap specifies UC. As Linus mentioned, main problem is to figure out the correct attribute for ioremap() which doesn't specify the actual attribute

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:42:28PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann3 wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Andreas Herrmann3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. Meanwhile I have figured out that it is some ACPI stuff that maps the page cached. I've changed

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andreas Herrmann3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll check this asap So, now that I've avoided this tiny NULL-pointer-dereference, the system boots fine as well with your (slightly modified) patch. See dmesg attached. for now i applied your ioremap_uncached() patch and removed my patch.

RE: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Pallipadi, Venkatesh
]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Barnes, Jesse; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:04:10PM -0800, Venki Pallipadi

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:15:05PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Andreas Herrmann3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:42:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andreas Herrmann3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but i have not seen this message in your boot log. Could you boot with early_ioremap_debug and send us the dmesg - i'm curious which ACPI tables are actively mapped while those devices are initialized. Hmm, early_ioremap_debug exists only

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:04:10PM -0800, Venki Pallipadi wrote: Below is another potential fix for the problem here. Going through ACPI ioremap usages, we found at one place the mapping is cached for possible optimization reason and not unmapped later. Patch below always unmaps ioremap at

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:35:51PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Andreas Herrmann3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll check this asap So, now that I've avoided this tiny NULL-pointer-dereference, the system boots fine as well with your (slightly modified) patch. See dmesg attached.

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:42:28PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann3 wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Andreas Herrmann3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. Meanwhile I have figured out that it is some ACPI stuff that maps the page cached. I've changed

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Andreas Herrmann3 wrote: Yes, we must fix all aliases or reject the conflicting mapping. But fixing all aliases might not be that easy. (I've just seen a panic when using your patch ;-( Avoiding inconsistent aliases is definitely fundamental to supporting PAT. -hpa -- To

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andreas Herrmann3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:42:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: but in general we must be robust enough in this case and just degrade

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andreas Herrmann3
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:42:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:13:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: but in general we must be robust enough in this case and just degrade any overlapping page to UC (and emit a warning

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Venki Pallipadi
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:52:43PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann3 wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:15:05PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Andreas Herrmann3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:42:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-17 Thread Andi Kleen
As Linus mentioned, main problem is to figure out the correct attribute for ioremap() which doesn't specify the actual attribute to be used. In this case the correct attribute is the one of the underlying MTRR. And if it conflicts with some other mapping that overrides an MTRR the driver was

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-16 Thread Andi Kleen
> Yes. Printks are there. But are with KERN_DEBUG now. We should change > them to WARNING atleast. I'm pretty sure they were without KERN_* originally. Another reason why the checkpatch.pl KERN_* warnings suck -- the original state would have been better and I bet you changed it just to shut up

RE: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-16 Thread Pallipadi, Venkatesh
PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Barnes, Jesse; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Siddha, Suresh B >Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental >changes and bug fixes > >&

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-16 Thread Andi Kleen
> This ioremap failing seems to be the real problem. This can be due to > new tracking of ioremaps introduced by PAT patches. We do not allow > conflicting ioremaps to same region. Probably that is happening Normally if there is a conflict there should be a printk (or at least it was so in the

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-16 Thread Venki Pallipadi
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 07:57:48PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > Hi, > > I just want to report that the PAT support in x86/mm causes crashes > on two of my test machines. On both boxes the SATA detection does > not work when the PAT support is patched into the kernel. > > Symptoms are as

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-16 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andreas Herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just want to report that the PAT support in x86/mm causes crashes on > two of my test machines. On both boxes the SATA detection does not > work when the PAT support is patched into the kernel. > > Symptoms are as follows -- best described by

RE: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-16 Thread Pallipadi, Venkatesh
;>[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Barnes, Jesse; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >>linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental >>changes and bug fixes >> >>Hi, >> >>I just want to report that the PAT support in x86/mm causes crashes >

RE: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-16 Thread Pallipadi, Venkatesh
CTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Barnes, Jesse; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT

RE: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-16 Thread Pallipadi, Venkatesh
]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Barnes, Jesse; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

RE: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-16 Thread Pallipadi, Venkatesh
]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Barnes, Jesse; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-16 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andreas Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just want to report that the PAT support in x86/mm causes crashes on two of my test machines. On both boxes the SATA detection does not work when the PAT support is patched into the kernel. Symptoms are as follows -- best described by a diff

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-16 Thread Venki Pallipadi
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 07:57:48PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann wrote: Hi, I just want to report that the PAT support in x86/mm causes crashes on two of my test machines. On both boxes the SATA detection does not work when the PAT support is patched into the kernel. Symptoms are as follows --

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-16 Thread Andi Kleen
This ioremap failing seems to be the real problem. This can be due to new tracking of ioremaps introduced by PAT patches. We do not allow conflicting ioremaps to same region. Probably that is happening Normally if there is a conflict there should be a printk (or at least it was so in the

RE: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-16 Thread Pallipadi, Venkatesh
]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Barnes, Jesse; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Siddha, Suresh B Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes This ioremap failing seems to be the real problem

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-16 Thread Andi Kleen
Yes. Printks are there. But are with KERN_DEBUG now. We should change them to WARNING atleast. I'm pretty sure they were without KERN_* originally. Another reason why the checkpatch.pl KERN_* warnings suck -- the original state would have been better and I bet you changed it just to shut up

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-15 Thread Ingo Molnar
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Some incremental changes and bug fixes for PAT patchset. The changes > are from the feedback we received earlier. There are few more pending > changes that will follow soon. thanks, applied them to x86.git. Note that PAT is still hardcoded to

[patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-15 Thread venkatesh . pallipadi
Some incremental changes and bug fixes for PAT patchset. The changes are from the feedback we received earlier. There are few more pending changes that will follow soon. Thanks, Venki -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL

[patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-15 Thread venkatesh . pallipadi
Some incremental changes and bug fixes for PAT patchset. The changes are from the feedback we received earlier. There are few more pending changes that will follow soon. Thanks, Venki -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL

Re: [patch 0/4] x86: PAT followup - Incremental changes and bug fixes

2008-01-15 Thread Ingo Molnar
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some incremental changes and bug fixes for PAT patchset. The changes are from the feedback we received earlier. There are few more pending changes that will follow soon. thanks, applied them to x86.git. Note that PAT is still hardcoded to