linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@amd.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: X86-ML <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>, Chao Wang <chaowang@redhat.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86: Only direct map addresses that are marked as E820_RAM
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:46:08 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120829214605.GA10216@jshin-Toonie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE9FiQWcYmROV1SHzk0_RUQfniDwgbyiCbcbRbXatYvYhuGp7Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 02:17:51PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@amd.com> wrote:
> > Currently direct mappings are created for [ 0 to max_low_pfn<<PAGE_SHIFT )
> > and [ 4GB to max_pfn<<PAGE_SHIFT ), which may include regions that are not
> > backed by actual DRAM. This is fine for holes under 4GB which are covered
> > by fixed and variable range MTRRs to be UC. However, we run into trouble
> > on higher memory addresses which cannot be covered by MTRRs.
> >
> > Our system with 1TB of RAM has an e820 that looks like this:
> >
> >  BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x00000000000983ff] usable
> >  BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000000098400-0x000000000009ffff] reserved
> >  BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000000d0000-0x00000000000fffff] reserved
> >  BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x00000000c7ebffff] usable
> >  BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000c7ec0000-0x00000000c7ed7fff] ACPI data
> >  BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000c7ed8000-0x00000000c7ed9fff] ACPI NVS
> >  BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000c7eda000-0x00000000c7ffffff] reserved
> >  BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000fec00000-0x00000000fec0ffff] reserved
> >  BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000fee00000-0x00000000fee00fff] reserved
> >  BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000fff00000-0x00000000ffffffff] reserved
> >  BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x000000e037ffffff] usable
> >  BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000e038000000-0x000000fcffffffff] reserved
> >  BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000010000000000-0x0000011ffeffffff] usable
> >
> > and so direct mappings are created for huge memory hole between
> > 0x000000e038000000 to 0x0000010000000000. Even though the kernel never
> > generates memory accesses in that region, since the page tables mark
> > them incorrectly as being WB, our (AMD) processor ends up causing a MCE
> > while doing some memory bookkeeping/optimizations around that area.
> >
> > This patch iterates through e820 and only direct maps ranges that are
> > marked as E820_RAM, and keeps track of those pfn ranges. Depending on
> > the alignment of E820 ranges, this may possibly result in using smaller
> > size (i.e. 4K instead of 2M or 1G) page tables.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@amd.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h |    9 ++++
> >  arch/x86/kernel/setup.c           |  100 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >  arch/x86/mm/init.c                |    2 +
> >  arch/x86/mm/init_64.c             |    6 +--
> >  4 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h
> > index e21fdd1..409047a 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h
> > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
> >
> >  #include <linux/const.h>
> >  #include <linux/types.h>
> > +#include <asm/e820.h>
> >
> >  /* PAGE_SHIFT determines the page size */
> >  #define PAGE_SHIFT     12
> > @@ -40,12 +41,20 @@
> >  #endif /* CONFIG_X86_64 */
> >
> >  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> > +#include <linux/range.h>
> >
> >  extern int devmem_is_allowed(unsigned long pagenr);
> >
> >  extern unsigned long max_low_pfn_mapped;
> >  extern unsigned long max_pfn_mapped;
> >
> > +extern struct range pfn_mapped[E820_X_MAX];
> > +extern int nr_pfn_mapped;
> > +
> > +extern void add_pfn_range_mapped(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn);
> > +extern bool pfn_range_is_mapped(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn);
> > +extern bool pfn_is_mapped(unsigned long pfn);
> > +
> >  static inline phys_addr_t get_max_mapped(void)
> >  {
> >         return (phys_addr_t)max_pfn_mapped << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > index d6e8c03..a2e392e 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > @@ -115,13 +115,47 @@
> >  #include <asm/prom.h>
> >
> >  /*
> > - * end_pfn only includes RAM, while max_pfn_mapped includes all e820 entries.
> > - * The direct mapping extends to max_pfn_mapped, so that we can directly access
> > - * apertures, ACPI and other tables without having to play with fixmaps.
> > + * max_low_pfn_mapped: highest direct mapped pfn under 4GB
> > + * max_pfn_mapped:     highest direct mapped pfn over 4GB
> > + *
> > + * The direct mapping only covers E820_RAM regions, so the ranges and gaps are
> > + * represented by pfn_mapped
> >   */
> >  unsigned long max_low_pfn_mapped;
> >  unsigned long max_pfn_mapped;
> >
> > +struct range pfn_mapped[E820_X_MAX];
> > +int nr_pfn_mapped;
> 
> change to static?

Hm .. yeah I guess we could, the initial reason why I didn't make it
static was because max_pfn_mapped was not static. But I guess as long
as everyone down the line uses pfn_range_is_mapped() to test for direct
mappings, I guess we can change it to static.

> 
> > +
> > +void add_pfn_range_mapped(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
> > +{
> > +       nr_pfn_mapped = add_range_with_merge(pfn_mapped, E820_X_MAX,
> > +                                            nr_pfn_mapped, start_pfn, end_pfn);
> > +       nr_pfn_mapped = clean_sort_range(pfn_mapped, E820_X_MAX);
> > +
> > +       max_pfn_mapped = max(max_pfn_mapped, end_pfn);
> > +
> > +       if (end_pfn <= (1UL << (32 - PAGE_SHIFT)))
> > +               max_low_pfn_mapped = max(max_low_pfn_mapped, end_pfn);
> > +}
> > +
> > +bool pfn_range_is_mapped(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
> > +{
> > +       int i;
> > +
> > +       for (i = 0; i < nr_pfn_mapped; i++)
> > +               if ((start_pfn >= pfn_mapped[i].start) &&
> > +                   (end_pfn <= pfn_mapped[i].end))
> > +                       return true;
> > +
> > +       return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +bool pfn_is_mapped(unsigned long pfn)
> > +{
> > +       return pfn_range_is_mapped(pfn, pfn + 1);
> > +}
> 
> wonder if those functions have to be in arch/x86/kernel/setup.c.

Where do you suggest we move it to?

> 
> also do we need to update the tracking array when we have do memory hot-remove?

Hm .. how is it handled right now? does the hot-remove tear down direct
mappings? If it does, I guess we could hook remove range code where that
happens ..



> 
> Thanks
> 
> Yinghai
> 


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-08-29 21:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-08-29 19:04 [PATCH V5 0/6] x86: Create direct mappings for E820_RAM only Jacob Shin
2012-08-29 19:04 ` [PATCH 1/6] x86, mm: Add page_size_mask() Jacob Shin
2012-08-29 19:04 ` [PATCH 2/6] x86, mm: Split out split_mem_range Jacob Shin
2012-08-29 19:04 ` [PATCH 3/6] x86/mm: find_early_table_space based on memory ranges that are being mapped Jacob Shin
2012-08-29 19:04 ` [PATCH 4/6] x86: Only direct map addresses that are marked as E820_RAM Jacob Shin
2012-08-29 21:17   ` Yinghai Lu
2012-08-29 21:32     ` Borislav Petkov
2012-08-30  6:28       ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-08-30 23:06         ` [PATCH 0/8] x86, mm: init_memory_mapping cleanup Yinghai Lu
2012-08-30 23:06           ` [PATCH 1/8] x86, mm: Add global page_size_mask Yinghai Lu
2012-08-30 23:06           ` [PATCH 2/8] x86, mm: Split out split_mem_range Yinghai Lu
2012-08-30 23:06           ` [PATCH 3/8] x86, mm: Moving init_memory_mapping calling Yinghai Lu
2012-08-30 23:06           ` [PATCH 4/8] x86, mm: Revert back good_end setting for 64bit Yinghai Lu
2012-08-30 23:06           ` [PATCH 5/8] x86, mm: Find early page table only one time Yinghai Lu
2012-08-30 23:06           ` [PATCH 6/8] x86: if kernel .text .data .bss are not marked as E820_RAM, complain and fix Yinghai Lu
2012-08-30 23:06           ` [PATCH 7/8] x86: Fixup code testing if a pfn is direct mapped Yinghai Lu
2012-08-30 23:06           ` [PATCH 8/8] x86: Only direct map addresses that are marked as E820_RAM Yinghai Lu
2012-08-30 23:14           ` [PATCH 0/8] x86, mm: init_memory_mapping cleanup Yinghai Lu
2012-08-30 23:22           ` Jacob Shin
2012-08-29 21:46     ` Jacob Shin [this message]
2012-08-29 19:04 ` [PATCH 5/6] x86: Fixup code testing if a pfn is direct mapped Jacob Shin
2012-08-29 21:02   ` Yinghai Lu
2012-08-29 19:04 ` [PATCH 6/6] x86: if kernel .text .data .bss are not marked as E820_RAM, complain and fix Jacob Shin

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=20120829214605.GA10216@jshin-Toonie \
    --to=jacob.shin@amd.com \
    --cc=andreas.herrmann3@amd.com \
    --cc=borislav.petkov@amd.com \
    --cc=chaowang@redhat.com \
    --cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86: Only direct map addresses that are marked as E820_RAM' \
    /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

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).