All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
To: Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Kazuhito Hagio <k-hagio@ab.jp.nec.com>,
	"lijiang@redhat.com" <lijiang@redhat.com>,
	"bhe@redhat.com" <bhe@redhat.com>,
	"ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org" <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	"anderson@redhat.com" <anderson@redhat.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64, vmcoreinfo : Append 'MAX_USER_VA_BITS' and 'MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS' to vmcoreinfo
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:44:07 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190212104407.GA17022@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d7d50b5a-3577-448e-d928-7898016a38fb@redhat.com>

On 02/12/19 at 10:37am, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> Hi Kazu,
> 
> On 02/04/2019 09:34 PM, Kazuhito Hagio wrote:
> > On 1/30/2019 8:48 PM, Dave Young wrote:
> > > + more people
> > > On 01/30/19 at 05:53pm, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> > > > With ARMv8.2-LVA and LPA architecture extensions, arm64 hardware which
> > > > supports these extensions can support upto 52-bit virtual and 52-bit
> > > > physical addresses respectively.
> > > > 
> > > > Since at the moment we enable the support of these extensions via CONFIG
> > > > flags, e.g.
> > > >   - LPA via CONFIG_ARM64_PA_BITS_52
> > > > 
> > > > there are no clear mechanisms in user-space right now to
> > > > deteremine these CONFIG flag values and also determine the PARange and
> > > > VARange address values.
> > > > 
> > > > User-space tools like 'makedumpfile' and 'crash-utility' can instead
> > > > use the 'MAX_USER_VA_BITS' and 'MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS' values to determine
> > > > the maximum virtual address and physical address (respectively)
> > > > supported by underlying kernel.
> > > > 
> > > > A reference 'makedumpfile' implementation which uses this approach to
> > > > determining the maximum physical address is available in [0].
> > > > 
> > > > [0].
> > > https://github.com/bhupesh-sharma/makedumpfile/blob/52-bit-pa-support-via-vmcore-v1/arch/arm64.c#L490
> > > 
> > > I'm not objecting the patch, just want to make sure to make clear about
> > > things and make sure these issues are aware by people, and leave arm
> > > people to review the arm bits.
> > > 
> > > 1. MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS
> > > As we previously found, back to 2014 makedumpfile took a patch to read the
> > > value from vmcore but the kernel patch was not accepted.
> > > So we should first make clear if this is really needed, why other arches
> > > do not need this in makedumpfile.
> > > 
> > > If we really need it then should it be arm64 only?
> > > 
> > > If it is arm64 only then the makedumpfile code should read this number
> > > only for arm64.
> > 
> > Sorry for the delay.
> > 
> > According to the kernel patch, some of arm32 platforms may need it
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2014-May/011909.html
> > but except for them (and arm64), makedumpfile can manage with kernel
> > version and some switches to determine this value so far.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Also Lianbo added the vmcoreinfo documents, I believe it stays in -tip
> > > tree,  need to make sure to document this as well.
> > > 
> > > 2. MAX_USER_VA_BITS
> > > Does makedumpfile care about userspace VA bits?  I do not see other code
> > > doing this,  Kazu and Dave A should be able to comment.
> > 
> > The mapping makedumpfile uses on arm64 is swapper_pg_dir only, so
> > unless the config affects its structure or something, makedumpfile
> > will not need this value.
> 
> I captured this case in more details while sending out the makedumpfile
> enablement patch for ARMv8.2-LVA (see [0]), but here is a brief summary on
> the same:
> 
> Since at the moment we enable the support of the ARMv8.2-LVA extension for
> 52-bit user-space VA in the kernel via a CONFIG flags
> (CONFIG_ARM64_USER_VA_BITS_52), so there are no clear mechanisms in
> user-space to determine this CONFIG
> flag value and use it to determine the address range values.
> 
> Since 'VA_BITS' are already exported via vmcoreinfo, if we export
> 'MAX_USER_VA_BITS' as well, we can use the same in user-space to check if
> the 'MAX_USER_VA_BITS' value is greater than 'VA_BITS'. If yes, then we are
> running a use-case where user-space is 52-bit while the underlying kernel is
> still 48-bit.

Problem is why this is needed, it sounds like you are talking about some
non-exist use case.

> 
> The increased 'PTRS_PER_PGD' value for such cases needs to be then
> calculated as is done by the underlying kernel (see
> 'arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h' for details):
> 
> #define PTRS_PER_PGD		(1 << (MAX_USER_VA_BITS - PGDIR_SHIFT))
> 
> Also, note that 'arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h' defines 'MAX_USER_VA_BITS'
> as 'VA_BITS' in case 'CONFIG_ARM64_USER_VA_BITS_52' is set to 'n':
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_USER_VA_BITS_52
> #define MAX_USER_VA_BITS	52
> #else
> #define MAX_USER_VA_BITS	VA_BITS
> #endif
> 
> So, makedumpfile will need this symbol exported in vmcore to make the above
> determination.
> 
> [0]. http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2019-February/022425.html
> 
> Thanks,
> Bhupesh

Thanks
Dave

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

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
To: Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Kazuhito Hagio <k-hagio@ab.jp.nec.com>,
	"lijiang@redhat.com" <lijiang@redhat.com>,
	"bhe@redhat.com" <bhe@redhat.com>,
	"ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org" <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	"anderson@redhat.com" <anderson@redhat.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64, vmcoreinfo : Append 'MAX_USER_VA_BITS' and 'MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS' to vmcoreinfo
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:44:07 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190212104407.GA17022@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d7d50b5a-3577-448e-d928-7898016a38fb@redhat.com>

On 02/12/19 at 10:37am, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> Hi Kazu,
> 
> On 02/04/2019 09:34 PM, Kazuhito Hagio wrote:
> > On 1/30/2019 8:48 PM, Dave Young wrote:
> > > + more people
> > > On 01/30/19 at 05:53pm, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> > > > With ARMv8.2-LVA and LPA architecture extensions, arm64 hardware which
> > > > supports these extensions can support upto 52-bit virtual and 52-bit
> > > > physical addresses respectively.
> > > > 
> > > > Since at the moment we enable the support of these extensions via CONFIG
> > > > flags, e.g.
> > > >   - LPA via CONFIG_ARM64_PA_BITS_52
> > > > 
> > > > there are no clear mechanisms in user-space right now to
> > > > deteremine these CONFIG flag values and also determine the PARange and
> > > > VARange address values.
> > > > 
> > > > User-space tools like 'makedumpfile' and 'crash-utility' can instead
> > > > use the 'MAX_USER_VA_BITS' and 'MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS' values to determine
> > > > the maximum virtual address and physical address (respectively)
> > > > supported by underlying kernel.
> > > > 
> > > > A reference 'makedumpfile' implementation which uses this approach to
> > > > determining the maximum physical address is available in [0].
> > > > 
> > > > [0].
> > > https://github.com/bhupesh-sharma/makedumpfile/blob/52-bit-pa-support-via-vmcore-v1/arch/arm64.c#L490
> > > 
> > > I'm not objecting the patch, just want to make sure to make clear about
> > > things and make sure these issues are aware by people, and leave arm
> > > people to review the arm bits.
> > > 
> > > 1. MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS
> > > As we previously found, back to 2014 makedumpfile took a patch to read the
> > > value from vmcore but the kernel patch was not accepted.
> > > So we should first make clear if this is really needed, why other arches
> > > do not need this in makedumpfile.
> > > 
> > > If we really need it then should it be arm64 only?
> > > 
> > > If it is arm64 only then the makedumpfile code should read this number
> > > only for arm64.
> > 
> > Sorry for the delay.
> > 
> > According to the kernel patch, some of arm32 platforms may need it
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2014-May/011909.html
> > but except for them (and arm64), makedumpfile can manage with kernel
> > version and some switches to determine this value so far.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Also Lianbo added the vmcoreinfo documents, I believe it stays in -tip
> > > tree,  need to make sure to document this as well.
> > > 
> > > 2. MAX_USER_VA_BITS
> > > Does makedumpfile care about userspace VA bits?  I do not see other code
> > > doing this,  Kazu and Dave A should be able to comment.
> > 
> > The mapping makedumpfile uses on arm64 is swapper_pg_dir only, so
> > unless the config affects its structure or something, makedumpfile
> > will not need this value.
> 
> I captured this case in more details while sending out the makedumpfile
> enablement patch for ARMv8.2-LVA (see [0]), but here is a brief summary on
> the same:
> 
> Since at the moment we enable the support of the ARMv8.2-LVA extension for
> 52-bit user-space VA in the kernel via a CONFIG flags
> (CONFIG_ARM64_USER_VA_BITS_52), so there are no clear mechanisms in
> user-space to determine this CONFIG
> flag value and use it to determine the address range values.
> 
> Since 'VA_BITS' are already exported via vmcoreinfo, if we export
> 'MAX_USER_VA_BITS' as well, we can use the same in user-space to check if
> the 'MAX_USER_VA_BITS' value is greater than 'VA_BITS'. If yes, then we are
> running a use-case where user-space is 52-bit while the underlying kernel is
> still 48-bit.

Problem is why this is needed, it sounds like you are talking about some
non-exist use case.

> 
> The increased 'PTRS_PER_PGD' value for such cases needs to be then
> calculated as is done by the underlying kernel (see
> 'arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h' for details):
> 
> #define PTRS_PER_PGD		(1 << (MAX_USER_VA_BITS - PGDIR_SHIFT))
> 
> Also, note that 'arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h' defines 'MAX_USER_VA_BITS'
> as 'VA_BITS' in case 'CONFIG_ARM64_USER_VA_BITS_52' is set to 'n':
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_USER_VA_BITS_52
> #define MAX_USER_VA_BITS	52
> #else
> #define MAX_USER_VA_BITS	VA_BITS
> #endif
> 
> So, makedumpfile will need this symbol exported in vmcore to make the above
> determination.
> 
> [0]. http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2019-February/022425.html
> 
> Thanks,
> Bhupesh

Thanks
Dave

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

  reply	other threads:[~2019-02-12 10:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-30 12:23 [PATCH] arm64, vmcoreinfo : Append 'MAX_USER_VA_BITS' and 'MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS' to vmcoreinfo Bhupesh Sharma
2019-01-30 12:23 ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-01-30 15:21 ` James Morse
2019-01-30 15:21   ` James Morse
2019-01-30 21:39   ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-01-30 21:39     ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-04 14:35     ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-04 14:35       ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-04 15:31       ` Robin Murphy
2019-02-04 15:31         ` Robin Murphy
2019-02-12  4:55         ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-12  4:55           ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-12 10:49           ` Robin Murphy
2019-02-12 10:49             ` Robin Murphy
2019-02-04 16:56       ` James Morse
2019-02-04 16:56         ` James Morse
2019-01-31  1:48 ` Dave Young
2019-01-31  1:48   ` Dave Young
2019-01-31 10:00   ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-01-31 10:00     ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-01-31 14:03   ` Dave Anderson
2019-01-31 14:03     ` Dave Anderson
2019-02-04 16:04   ` Kazuhito Hagio
2019-02-04 16:04     ` Kazuhito Hagio
2019-02-12  5:07     ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-12  5:07       ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-12 10:44       ` Dave Young [this message]
2019-02-12 10:44         ` Dave Young
2019-02-12 19:59         ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-12 19:59           ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-12 23:03           ` Kazuhito Hagio
2019-02-12 23:03             ` Kazuhito Hagio
2019-02-13 11:15             ` Dave Young
2019-02-13 11:15               ` Dave Young
2019-02-13 18:22               ` James Morse
2019-02-13 18:22                 ` James Morse
2019-02-13 19:52                 ` Kazuhito Hagio
2019-02-13 19:52                   ` Kazuhito Hagio
2019-02-15 17:34                   ` James Morse
2019-02-15 17:34                     ` James Morse
2019-02-15 18:01                     ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-15 18:01                       ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-18 15:27                       ` Steve Capper
2019-02-18 15:27                         ` Steve Capper
2019-02-21 16:08                         ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-21 16:08                           ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-19 20:47                       ` Kazuhito Hagio
2019-02-19 20:47                         ` Kazuhito Hagio
2019-02-21 16:20                         ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-21 16:20                           ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-21 16:42                           ` Dave Anderson
2019-02-21 16:42                             ` Dave Anderson
2019-02-21 19:02                             ` Kazuhito Hagio
2019-02-21 19:02                               ` Kazuhito Hagio
2019-03-01  4:01                               ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-03-01  4:01                                 ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-14 19:30                 ` Bhupesh Sharma
2019-02-14 19:30                   ` Bhupesh Sharma

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=20190212104407.GA17022@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com \
    --to=dyoung@redhat.com \
    --cc=anderson@redhat.com \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=bhe@redhat.com \
    --cc=bhsharma@redhat.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=k-hagio@ab.jp.nec.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=lijiang@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /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.