From: christophe leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] powerpc/mm: Enhance 'slice' for supporting PPC32
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 09:22:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <36e8d873-4021-4266-bf5f-287f396ba9e1@c-s.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e2f36c99-1b5d-acf5-12c8-b2b48701011a@c-s.fr>
Hi Segher,
Le 19/01/2018 à 10:45, Christophe LEROY a écrit :
>
>
> Le 19/01/2018 à 10:13, Aneesh Kumar K.V a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On 01/19/2018 02:37 PM, Christophe LEROY wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 19/01/2018 à 10:02, Aneesh Kumar K.V a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/19/2018 02:14 PM, Christophe LEROY wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 19/01/2018 à 09:24, Aneesh Kumar K.V a écrit :
>>>>>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In preparation for the following patch which will fix an issue on
>>>>>>> the 8xx by re-using the 'slices', this patch enhances the
>>>>>>> 'slices' implementation to support 32 bits CPUs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On PPC32, the address space is limited to 4Gbytes, hence only the
>>>>>>> low
>>>>>>> slices will be used. As of today, the code uses
>>>>>>> SLICE_LOW_TOP (0x100000000ul) and compares it with addr to determine
>>>>>>> if addr refers to low or high space.
>>>>>>> On PPC32, such a (addr < SLICE_LOW_TOP) test is always false because
>>>>>>> 0x100000000ul degrades to 0. Therefore, the patch modifies
>>>>>>> SLICE_LOW_TOP to (0xfffffffful) and modifies the tests to
>>>>>>> (addr <= SLICE_LOW_TOP) which will then always be true on PPC32
>>>>>>> as addr has type 'unsigned long' while not modifying the PPC64
>>>>>>> behaviour.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch moves "slices" functions prototypes from page64.h to
>>>>>>> page.h
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The high slices use bitmaps. As bitmap functions are not prepared to
>>>>>>> handling bitmaps of size 0, the bitmap_xxx() calls are wrapped into
>>>>>>> slice_bitmap_xxx() macros which will take care of the 0 nbits case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> v2: First patch of v1 serie split in two parts ; added
>>>>>>> slice_bitmap_xxx() macros.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/page.h | 14 +++++++++
>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/page_32.h | 19 ++++++++++++
>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/page_64.h | 21 ++-----------
>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_nohash.c | 7 +++++
>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c | 60
>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>>>>>> 6 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page.h
>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page.h
>>>>>>> index 8da5d4c1cab2..d0384f9db9eb 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page.h
>>>>>>> @@ -342,6 +342,20 @@ typedef struct page *pgtable_t;
>>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_MM_SLICES
>>>>>>> +struct mm_struct;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +unsigned long slice_get_unmapped_area(unsigned long addr,
>>>>>>> unsigned long len,
>>>>>>> + unsigned long flags, unsigned int psize,
>>>>>>> + int topdown);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +unsigned int get_slice_psize(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long
>>>>>>> addr);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +void slice_set_user_psize(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned int
>>>>>>> psize);
>>>>>>> +void slice_set_range_psize(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long
>>>>>>> start,
>>>>>>> + unsigned long len, unsigned int psize);
>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we do a slice.h ? the way we have other files? and then do
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes we could add a slice.h instead of using page.h for that, good
>>>>> idea.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/slice.h that will carry
>>>>>> #define slice_bitmap_zero(dst, nbits) \
>>>>>> do { if (nbits) bitmap_zero(dst, nbits); } while (0)
>>>>>> #define slice_bitmap_set(dst, pos, nbits) \
>>>>>> do { if (nbits) bitmap_set(dst, pos, nbits); } while (0)
>>>>>> #define slice_bitmap_copy(dst, src, nbits) \
>>>>>> do { if (nbits) bitmap_copy(dst, src, nbits); } while (0)
>>>>>> #define slice_bitmap_and(dst, src1, src2, nbits) \
>>>>>> ({ (nbits) ? bitmap_and(dst, src1, src2, nbits) : 0; })
>>>>>> #define slice_bitmap_or(dst, src1, src2, nbits) \
>>>>>> do { if (nbits) bitmap_or(dst, src1, src2, nbits); } while (0)
>>>>>> #define slice_bitmap_andnot(dst, src1, src2, nbits) \
>>>>>> ({ (nbits) ? bitmap_andnot(dst, src1, src2, nbits) : 0; })
>>>>>> #define slice_bitmap_equal(src1, src2, nbits) \
>>>>>> ({ (nbits) ? bitmap_equal(src1, src2, nbits) : 1; })
>>>>>> #define slice_bitmap_empty(src, nbits) \
>>>>>> ({ (nbits) ? bitmap_empty(src, nbits) : 1; })
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This without that if(nbits) check and a proper static inline so
>>>>>> that we
>>>>>> can do type checking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it really worth duplicating that just for eliminating the 'if
>>>>> (nbits)' in one case ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Only in book3s/64 we will be able to eliminate that, for nohash/32
>>>>> we need to keep the test due to the difference between low and high
>>>>> slices.
>>>>
>>>> the other advantage is we move the SLICE_LOW_SHIFT to the right
>>>> location. IMHO mm subystem is really complex with these really
>>>> overloaded headers. If we can keep it seperate we should with
>>>> minimal code duplication?
>>>
>>> For the constants I fully agree with your proposal and I will do it.
>>> I was only questionning the benefit of moving the slice_bitmap_xxxx()
>>> stuff, taking into account that the 'if (nbits)' test is already
>>> eliminated by the compiler.
>>>
>>
>> That is compiler dependent as you are finding with the other patch
>> where if (0) didn't get compiled out
>
> I don't think so. When I had the missing prototype, the compilation goes
> ok, including the final link. Which means at the end the code is not
> included since radix_enabled() evaluates to 0.
>
> Many many parts of the kernel are based on this assumption.
>
Segher, what is your opinion on the above ? Can we consider that a ' if
(nbits)' will always be compiled out when nbits is a #define constant,
or should we duplicate the macros as suggested in order to avoid
unneccessary 'if' test on platforms where 'nbits' is always not null by
definition ?
Patch is at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/862117/
Christophe
---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-20 8:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-17 9:22 [PATCH v2 1/5] powerpc/mm: Enhance 'slice' for supporting PPC32 Christophe Leroy
2018-01-17 9:22 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] powerpc/32: Fix hugepage allocation on 8xx at hint address Christophe Leroy
2018-01-19 8:26 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2018-01-19 8:49 ` Christophe LEROY
2018-01-27 9:37 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-01-17 9:22 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] powerpc/mm: Allow more than 16 low slices Christophe Leroy
2018-01-19 8:30 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2018-01-19 8:59 ` Christophe LEROY
2018-01-19 9:06 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2018-01-17 9:22 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] powerpc/8xx: Increase the number of mm slices Christophe Leroy
2018-01-17 9:22 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] powerpc/mm: Remove intermediate bitmap copy in 'slices' Christophe Leroy
2018-01-19 8:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] powerpc/mm: Enhance 'slice' for supporting PPC32 Aneesh Kumar K.V
2018-01-19 8:44 ` Christophe LEROY
2018-01-19 9:02 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2018-01-19 9:07 ` Christophe LEROY
2018-01-19 9:13 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2018-01-19 9:45 ` Christophe LEROY
2018-01-20 8:22 ` christophe leroy [this message]
2018-01-20 17:56 ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-01-22 7:52 ` Christophe LEROY
2018-01-23 21:47 ` Segher Boessenkool
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=36e8d873-4021-4266-bf5f-287f396ba9e1@c-s.fr \
--to=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=oss@buserror.net \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).