From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
kvmarm <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 1/3] memblock: update initialization of reserved pages
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:54:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1065c0ac-f9e3-2d3a-1ec4-a5c28f98c6ae@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YHl4mqgh5CtNk1l7@kernel.org>
On 16.04.21 13:44, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:30:12AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> Not sure we really need a new pagetype here, PG_Reserved seems to be quite
>>> enough to say "don't touch this". I generally agree that we could make
>>> PG_Reserved a PageType and then have several sub-types for reserved memory.
>>> This definitely will add clarity but I'm not sure that this justifies
>>> amount of churn and effort required to audit uses of PageResrved().
>>>> Then, we could mostly avoid having to query memblock at runtime to figure
>>>> out that this is special memory. This would obviously be an extension to
>>>> this series. Just a thought.
>>>
>>> Stop pushing memblock out of kernel! ;-)
>>
>> Can't stop. Won't stop. :D
>>
>> It's lovely for booting up a kernel until we have other data-structures in
>> place ;)
>
> A bit more seriously, we don't have any data structure that reliably
> represents physical memory layout and arch-independent fashion.
> memblock is probably the best starting point for eventually having one.
We have the (slowish) kernel resource tree after boot and the (faster)
memmap. I really don't see why we really need another slowish variant.
We might be better off to just extend and speed up the kernel resource tree.
Memblock as is is not a reasonable datastructure to keep around after
boot: for example, how we handle boottime allocations and reserve
regions both as reserved.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
kvmarm <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 1/3] memblock: update initialization of reserved pages
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:54:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1065c0ac-f9e3-2d3a-1ec4-a5c28f98c6ae@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YHl4mqgh5CtNk1l7@kernel.org>
On 16.04.21 13:44, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:30:12AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> Not sure we really need a new pagetype here, PG_Reserved seems to be quite
>>> enough to say "don't touch this". I generally agree that we could make
>>> PG_Reserved a PageType and then have several sub-types for reserved memory.
>>> This definitely will add clarity but I'm not sure that this justifies
>>> amount of churn and effort required to audit uses of PageResrved().
>>>> Then, we could mostly avoid having to query memblock at runtime to figure
>>>> out that this is special memory. This would obviously be an extension to
>>>> this series. Just a thought.
>>>
>>> Stop pushing memblock out of kernel! ;-)
>>
>> Can't stop. Won't stop. :D
>>
>> It's lovely for booting up a kernel until we have other data-structures in
>> place ;)
>
> A bit more seriously, we don't have any data structure that reliably
> represents physical memory layout and arch-independent fashion.
> memblock is probably the best starting point for eventually having one.
We have the (slowish) kernel resource tree after boot and the (faster)
memmap. I really don't see why we really need another slowish variant.
We might be better off to just extend and speed up the kernel resource tree.
Memblock as is is not a reasonable datastructure to keep around after
boot: for example, how we handle boottime allocations and reserve
regions both as reserved.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
kvmarm <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 1/3] memblock: update initialization of reserved pages
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:54:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1065c0ac-f9e3-2d3a-1ec4-a5c28f98c6ae@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YHl4mqgh5CtNk1l7@kernel.org>
On 16.04.21 13:44, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:30:12AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> Not sure we really need a new pagetype here, PG_Reserved seems to be quite
>>> enough to say "don't touch this". I generally agree that we could make
>>> PG_Reserved a PageType and then have several sub-types for reserved memory.
>>> This definitely will add clarity but I'm not sure that this justifies
>>> amount of churn and effort required to audit uses of PageResrved().
>>>> Then, we could mostly avoid having to query memblock at runtime to figure
>>>> out that this is special memory. This would obviously be an extension to
>>>> this series. Just a thought.
>>>
>>> Stop pushing memblock out of kernel! ;-)
>>
>> Can't stop. Won't stop. :D
>>
>> It's lovely for booting up a kernel until we have other data-structures in
>> place ;)
>
> A bit more seriously, we don't have any data structure that reliably
> represents physical memory layout and arch-independent fashion.
> memblock is probably the best starting point for eventually having one.
We have the (slowish) kernel resource tree after boot and the (faster)
memmap. I really don't see why we really need another slowish variant.
We might be better off to just extend and speed up the kernel resource tree.
Memblock as is is not a reasonable datastructure to keep around after
boot: for example, how we handle boottime allocations and reserve
regions both as reserved.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-16 11:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 78+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-07 17:26 [RFC/RFT PATCH 0/3] arm64: drop pfn_valid_within() and simplify pfn_valid() Mike Rapoport
2021-04-07 17:26 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-07 17:26 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-07 17:26 ` [RFC/RFT PATCH 1/3] memblock: update initialization of reserved pages Mike Rapoport
2021-04-07 17:26 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-07 17:26 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-08 5:16 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-04-08 5:16 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-04-08 5:16 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-04-08 5:48 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-08 5:48 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-08 5:48 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-14 15:12 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-14 15:12 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-14 15:12 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-14 15:27 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-04-14 15:27 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-04-14 15:27 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-04-14 15:27 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-04-14 15:52 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-14 15:52 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-14 15:52 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-14 20:24 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-14 20:24 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-14 20:24 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-15 9:30 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-15 9:30 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-15 9:30 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-16 11:44 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-16 11:44 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-16 11:44 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-16 11:54 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2021-04-16 11:54 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-16 11:54 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-14 20:11 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-14 20:11 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-14 20:11 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-14 20:06 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-14 20:06 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-14 20:06 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-14 20:09 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-14 20:09 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-07 17:26 ` [RFC/RFT PATCH 2/3] arm64: decouple check whether pfn is normal memory from pfn_valid() Mike Rapoport
2021-04-07 17:26 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-07 17:26 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-08 5:14 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-04-08 5:14 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-04-08 5:14 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-04-08 6:00 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-08 6:00 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-08 6:00 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-14 15:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-14 15:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-14 15:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-14 20:29 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-14 20:29 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-14 20:29 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-15 9:31 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-15 9:31 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-15 9:31 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-16 11:40 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-16 11:40 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-16 11:40 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-07 17:26 ` [RFC/RFT PATCH 3/3] arm64: drop pfn_valid_within() and simplify pfn_valid() Mike Rapoport
2021-04-07 17:26 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-07 17:26 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-08 5:12 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-04-08 5:12 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-04-08 5:12 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-04-08 6:17 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-08 6:17 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-08 6:17 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-08 5:19 ` [RFC/RFT PATCH 0/3] " Anshuman Khandual
2021-04-08 5:19 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-04-08 5:19 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-04-08 6:27 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-08 6:27 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-08 6:27 ` Mike Rapoport
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1065c0ac-f9e3-2d3a-1ec4-a5c28f98c6ae@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.