WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] x86: cacheability page attributes

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] x86: cacheability page attributes
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:16:57 +0100
Delivery-date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:14:37 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <46127A18.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acd2iTqneOuZ4OJ8EduKZAAWy6hiGQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [RFC] x86: cacheability page attributes
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214
On 3/4/07 15:00, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Attached draft patch is supposed to help dealing with tracking cacheability
> attributes on x86, specifically to prevent page aliases using different
> cacheability attributes.

How important is this to get right? The Intel manual warns a bit vaguely
about it, but I get the impression that nothing actually breaks in terms of
cache coherency if a page is mapped with more than one PAT attribute (very
much unlike the situation if CPUs have differing MTRR attributes!). The
manual explains that even if a UC attribute is chosen, for example, the
processor's cache will continue to snoop for accesses/updates of that line.

This is something I'd be very interested to get a definitive answer on from
Intel and AMD.

 -- Keir

> The problem with the approach of extending the
> set of page types (by splitting PGT_writable_page) is that a simple update
> of a pte which changes nothing but _PAGE_PWT or _PAGE_PCD doesn't
> work, as the scheme requires the old type (e.g. simple writeable page) to
> first drop its type reference count to zero, before the new type can be
> established.
> 
> While in all previous scenarios this doesn't present a problem, here it simply
> seems wrong: If the only use is through the pte being updated, this one
> reference shouldn't be considered. As I understand it, racing requests to
> bump the type reference count could be avoided by clearing PGT_validated
> while retaining the single reference, but what I don't have a reasonable
> idea for is how (and where) to handle the transition while retaining the
> type reference.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel