All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: "Anshuman Khandual" <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
	"Ard Biesheuvel" <ardb@kernel.org>,
	"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"James Morse" <james.morse@arm.com>,
	"Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	"Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>,
	"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	"Mike Rapoport" <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Veronika Kabatova" <vkabatov@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] arm64/mm: Fix pfn_valid() for ZONE_DEVICE based memory
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 11:29:37 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210308112936.GD15644@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e446810c-2020-9f21-79ba-6ede473447da@redhat.com>

On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 07:24:21PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 05.03.21 19:13, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 10:54:57AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > pfn_valid() validates a pfn but basically it checks for a valid struct page
> > > backing for that pfn. It should always return positive for memory ranges
> > > backed with struct page mapping. But currently pfn_valid() fails for all
> > > ZONE_DEVICE based memory types even though they have struct page mapping.
> > > 
> > > pfn_valid() asserts that there is a memblock entry for a given pfn without
> > > MEMBLOCK_NOMAP flag being set. The problem with ZONE_DEVICE based memory is
> > > that they do not have memblock entries. Hence memblock_is_map_memory() will
> > > invariably fail via memblock_search() for a ZONE_DEVICE based address. This
> > > eventually fails pfn_valid() which is wrong. memblock_is_map_memory() needs
> > > to be skipped for such memory ranges. As ZONE_DEVICE memory gets hotplugged
> > > into the system via memremap_pages() called from a driver, their respective
> > > memory sections will not have SECTION_IS_EARLY set.
> > > 
> > > Normal hotplug memory will never have MEMBLOCK_NOMAP set in their memblock
> > > regions. Because the flag MEMBLOCK_NOMAP was specifically designed and set
> > > for firmware reserved memory regions. memblock_is_map_memory() can just be
> > > skipped as its always going to be positive and that will be an optimization
> > > for the normal hotplug memory. Like ZONE_DEVICE based memory, all normal
> > > hotplugged memory too will not have SECTION_IS_EARLY set for their sections
> > > 
> > > Skipping memblock_is_map_memory() for all non early memory sections would
> > > fix pfn_valid() problem for ZONE_DEVICE based memory and also improve its
> > > performance for normal hotplug memory as well.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> > > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > > Fixes: 73b20c84d42d ("arm64: mm: implement pte_devmap support")
> > > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > >   arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > >   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> > > index 0ace5e68efba..5920c527845a 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> > > @@ -230,6 +230,18 @@ int pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn)
> > >   	if (!valid_section(__pfn_to_section(pfn)))
> > >   		return 0;
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * ZONE_DEVICE memory does not have the memblock entries.
> > > +	 * memblock_is_map_memory() check for ZONE_DEVICE based
> > > +	 * addresses will always fail. Even the normal hotplugged
> > > +	 * memory will never have MEMBLOCK_NOMAP flag set in their
> > > +	 * memblock entries. Skip memblock search for all non early
> > > +	 * memory sections covering all of hotplug memory including
> > > +	 * both normal and ZONE_DEVICE based.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if (!early_section(__pfn_to_section(pfn)))
> > > +		return pfn_section_valid(__pfn_to_section(pfn), pfn);
> > 
> > Would something like this work instead:
> > 
> > 	if (online_device_section(ms))
> > 		return 1;
> > 
> > to avoid the assumptions around early_section()?
> 
> Please keep online section logic out of pfn valid logic. Tow different
> things. (and rather not diverge too much from generic pfn_valid() - we want
> to achieve the opposite in the long term, merging both implementations)

I think I misread the code. I was looking for a new flag to check like
SECTION_IS_DEVICE instead of assuming that !SECTION_IS_EARLY means
device or mhp.

Anyway, staring at this code for a bit more, I came to the conclusion
that the logic in Anshuman's patches is fairly robust - we only need to
check for memblock_is_map_memory() if early_section() as that's the only
case where we can have MEMBLOCK_NOMAP. Maybe the comment above should be
re-written a bit and avoid the ZONE_DEVICE and hotplugged memory
details altogether.

-- 
Catalin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: "Anshuman Khandual" <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
	"Ard Biesheuvel" <ardb@kernel.org>,
	"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"James Morse" <james.morse@arm.com>,
	"Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	"Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>,
	"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	"Mike Rapoport" <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Veronika Kabatova" <vkabatov@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] arm64/mm: Fix pfn_valid() for ZONE_DEVICE based memory
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 11:29:37 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210308112936.GD15644@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e446810c-2020-9f21-79ba-6ede473447da@redhat.com>

On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 07:24:21PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 05.03.21 19:13, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 10:54:57AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > pfn_valid() validates a pfn but basically it checks for a valid struct page
> > > backing for that pfn. It should always return positive for memory ranges
> > > backed with struct page mapping. But currently pfn_valid() fails for all
> > > ZONE_DEVICE based memory types even though they have struct page mapping.
> > > 
> > > pfn_valid() asserts that there is a memblock entry for a given pfn without
> > > MEMBLOCK_NOMAP flag being set. The problem with ZONE_DEVICE based memory is
> > > that they do not have memblock entries. Hence memblock_is_map_memory() will
> > > invariably fail via memblock_search() for a ZONE_DEVICE based address. This
> > > eventually fails pfn_valid() which is wrong. memblock_is_map_memory() needs
> > > to be skipped for such memory ranges. As ZONE_DEVICE memory gets hotplugged
> > > into the system via memremap_pages() called from a driver, their respective
> > > memory sections will not have SECTION_IS_EARLY set.
> > > 
> > > Normal hotplug memory will never have MEMBLOCK_NOMAP set in their memblock
> > > regions. Because the flag MEMBLOCK_NOMAP was specifically designed and set
> > > for firmware reserved memory regions. memblock_is_map_memory() can just be
> > > skipped as its always going to be positive and that will be an optimization
> > > for the normal hotplug memory. Like ZONE_DEVICE based memory, all normal
> > > hotplugged memory too will not have SECTION_IS_EARLY set for their sections
> > > 
> > > Skipping memblock_is_map_memory() for all non early memory sections would
> > > fix pfn_valid() problem for ZONE_DEVICE based memory and also improve its
> > > performance for normal hotplug memory as well.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> > > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > > Fixes: 73b20c84d42d ("arm64: mm: implement pte_devmap support")
> > > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > >   arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > >   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> > > index 0ace5e68efba..5920c527845a 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> > > @@ -230,6 +230,18 @@ int pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn)
> > >   	if (!valid_section(__pfn_to_section(pfn)))
> > >   		return 0;
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * ZONE_DEVICE memory does not have the memblock entries.
> > > +	 * memblock_is_map_memory() check for ZONE_DEVICE based
> > > +	 * addresses will always fail. Even the normal hotplugged
> > > +	 * memory will never have MEMBLOCK_NOMAP flag set in their
> > > +	 * memblock entries. Skip memblock search for all non early
> > > +	 * memory sections covering all of hotplug memory including
> > > +	 * both normal and ZONE_DEVICE based.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if (!early_section(__pfn_to_section(pfn)))
> > > +		return pfn_section_valid(__pfn_to_section(pfn), pfn);
> > 
> > Would something like this work instead:
> > 
> > 	if (online_device_section(ms))
> > 		return 1;
> > 
> > to avoid the assumptions around early_section()?
> 
> Please keep online section logic out of pfn valid logic. Tow different
> things. (and rather not diverge too much from generic pfn_valid() - we want
> to achieve the opposite in the long term, merging both implementations)

I think I misread the code. I was looking for a new flag to check like
SECTION_IS_DEVICE instead of assuming that !SECTION_IS_EARLY means
device or mhp.

Anyway, staring at this code for a bit more, I came to the conclusion
that the logic in Anshuman's patches is fairly robust - we only need to
check for memblock_is_map_memory() if early_section() as that's the only
case where we can have MEMBLOCK_NOMAP. Maybe the comment above should be
re-written a bit and avoid the ZONE_DEVICE and hotplugged memory
details altogether.

-- 
Catalin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-08 11:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-05  5:24 [PATCH V3 0/2] arm64/mm: Fix pfn_valid() for ZONE_DEVICE based memory Anshuman Khandual
2021-03-05  5:24 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-03-05  5:24 ` [PATCH V3 1/2] " Anshuman Khandual
2021-03-05  5:24   ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-03-05 18:13   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-05 18:13     ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-05 18:24     ` David Hildenbrand
2021-03-05 18:24       ` David Hildenbrand
2021-03-08 11:29       ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2021-03-08 11:29         ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-08 17:59   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-08 17:59     ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-05  5:24 ` [PATCH V3 2/2] arm64/mm: Reorganize pfn_valid() Anshuman Khandual
2021-03-05  5:24   ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-03-08 18:00   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-08 18:00     ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-05  5:38 ` [PATCH V3 0/2] arm64/mm: Fix pfn_valid() for ZONE_DEVICE based memory Anshuman Khandual
2021-03-05  5:38   ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-03-05 12:28   ` Veronika Kabatova
2021-03-05 12:28     ` Veronika Kabatova
2021-03-05 18:16     ` Veronika Kabatova
2021-03-05 18:16       ` Veronika Kabatova
2021-03-05 18:22       ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-05 18:22         ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-08 19:16 ` Will Deacon
2021-03-08 19:16   ` Will Deacon

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=20210308112936.GD15644@arm.com \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=vkabatov@redhat.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.