Re: dax alignment problem on arm64 (and other achitectures)

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 29.01.21 03:06, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
>>> Might be related to the broken custom pfn_valid() implementation for
>>> ZONE_DEVICE.
>>>
>>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1608621144-4001-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com
>>>
>>> And essentially ignoring sub-section data in there for now as well (but
>>> might not be that relevant yet). In addition, this might also be related to
>>>
>>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/161058499000.1840162.702316708443239771.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com
>>
>> I will check it, and see what I find. I saw that panic almost a year
>> ago, things might have changed since then.
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> There is no panic anymore, but I also can't offset by 2M anymore, the
> minimum that works now is 16M, and if alignment is less than 16M
> creating devdax device fails.

I wonder why we get such different namespace sizes? Where do the 
differences come from? This looks very weird.

> 
> So, I tried the new ARM64 patch that reduces section sizes, and two
> alignments for pmem: regular 2G alignment, and 2G+16M alignment.
> (subtracted 16M from the bottom)
> 
> ***** 4K page, 6G RAM, 2G PRAM  *****
> BOOT:
> 40000000-1bfffffff : System RAM
> 1c0000000-23fffffff : namespace0.0
> DEVDAX:
> 40000000-1bfffffff : System RAM
> 1c0000000-1c21fffff : namespace0.0
> 1c2200000-23fffffff : dax0.0
> HOTPLUG:
> 40000000-1bfffffff : System RAM
> 1c0000000-1c21fffff : namespace0.0
> 1c8000000-23fffffff : dax0.0
>    1c8000000-23fffffff : System RAM (kmem)               128M Wasted (Expected)

The namespace spans 34MB??

> 
> ***** 4K page, 6G-16M RAM, 2G+16M PRAM  *****
> BOOT:
> 40000000-1beffffff : System RAM
> 1bf000000-23fffffff : namespace0.0
> DEVDAX:
> 40000000-1beffffff : System RAM
> 1bf000000-1c11fffff : namespace0.0
> 1c1200000-23fffffff : dax0.0
> HOTPLUG:
> 40000000-1beffffff : System RAM
> 1bf000000-1c11fffff : namespace0.0
> 1c8000000-23fffffff : dax0.0
>    1c8000000-23fffffff : System RAM (kmem)               144M Wasted (????)

The namespace spans 34MB??

> 
> ***** 64K page, 6G RAM, 2G PRAM  *****
> BOOT:
> 40000000-1bfffffff : System RAM
> 1c0000000-23fffffff : namespace0.0
> DEVDAX:
> 40000000-1bfffffff : System RAM
> 1c0000000-1dfffffff : namespace0.0
> 1e0000000-23fffffff : dax0.0
> HOTPLUG:
> 40000000-1bfffffff : System RAM
> 1c0000000-1dfffffff : namespace0.0

The namespace spans 512MB ?!? What?

> 1e0000000-23fffffff : dax0.0
>    1e0000000-23fffffff : System RAM (kmem)               512M Wasted (Expected)
> 
> ***** 64K page, 6G-16M RAM, 2G+16M PRAM  *****
> BOOT:
> 40000000-1beffffff : System RAM
> 1bf000000-23fffffff : namespace0.0
> DEVDAX:
> 40000000-1beffffff : System RAM
> 1bf000000-1bf3fffff : namespace0.0
> 1bf400000-23fffffff : dax0.0
> HOTPLUG:
> 40000000-1beffffff : System RAM
> 1bf000000-1bf3fffff : namespace0.0

The namespace now consumes 4MB ?!?

> 1c0000000-23fffffff : dax0.0
>    1c0000000-23fffffff : System RAM (kmem)               16M Wasted (Optimal)

Good :) I guess more optimal would be 2MB/0MB :)

> 
> In all three cases only System RAM, namespace0.0, and dax0.0 were
> printed from /proc/iomem.
> BOOT    content of iomem right after boot
> DEVDAX  content of iomem after devdax is created
>             ndctl create-namespace --mode devdax  -e namespace0.0"
> HOTPLUG content of imem after dax0.0 is hotplugged:
>             echo dax0.0 > /sys/bus/dax/drivers/device_dax/unbind
>             echo dax0.0 > /sys/bus/dax/drivers/kmem/new_id
> 
> 
> The most surprising part is why with 4K pages and 16M offset 144M is
> wasted? For whatever reason, when devdax is created 34 goes wasted to
> the label? Something is wrong here.. However, I am happy with 64K
> pages result, and that only 16M is wasted, of course optimally, we
> should be using any memory here, but it is still much better than what
> we have now.

Definitely, but we should try figuring out what's going on here. I 
assume on x86-64 it behaves differently?

Thanks


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb