From: Mike Rapoport <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Anshuman Khandual <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Ard Biesheuvel <email@example.com>, Catalin Marinas <firstname.lastname@example.org>, David Hildenbrand <email@example.com>, Marc Zyngier <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mark Rutland <email@example.com>, Mike Rapoport <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Will Deacon <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 3/3] arm64: drop pfn_valid_within() and simplify pfn_valid() Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 09:17:58 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YG6gFi5/3O2OsYYH@kernel.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:42:43AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > On 4/7/21 10:56 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > From: Mike Rapoport <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > > > The arm64's version of pfn_valid() differs from the generic because of two > > reasons: > > > > * Parts of the memory map are freed during boot. This makes it necessary to > > verify that there is actual physical memory that corresponds to a pfn > > which is done by querying memblock. > > > > * There are NOMAP memory regions. These regions are not mapped in the > > linear map and until the previous commit the struct pages representing > > these areas had default values. > > > > As the consequence of absence of the special treatment of NOMAP regions in > > the memory map it was necessary to use memblock_is_map_memory() in > > pfn_valid() and to have pfn_valid_within() aliased to pfn_valid() so that > > generic mm functionality would not treat a NOMAP page as a normal page. > > > > Since the NOMAP regions are now marked as PageReserved(), pfn walkers and > > the rest of core mm will treat them as unusable memory and thus > > pfn_valid_within() is no longer required at all and can be disabled by > > removing CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE on arm64. > > But what about the memory map that are freed during boot (mentioned above). > Would not they still cause CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE to be applicable and hence > pfn_valid_within() ? The CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE name is misleading as actually pfn_valid_within() is only required for holes within a MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES blocks (see comment near pfn_valid_within() definition in mmzone.h). The freeing of the memory map during boot avoids breaking MAX_ORDER blocks and the holes for which memory map is freed are always aligned at MAX_ORDER. AFAIU, the only case when there could be a hole in a MAX_ORDER block is when EFI/ACPI reserves memory for its use and this memory becomes NOMAP in the kernel. We still create struct pages for this memory, but they never get values other than defaults, so core mm has no idea that this memory should be touched, hence the need for pfn_valid_within() aliased to pfn_valid() on arm64. > > pfn_valid() can be slightly simplified by replacing > > memblock_is_map_memory() with memblock_is_memory(). > > Just to understand this better, pfn_valid() will now return true for all > MEMBLOCK_NOMAP based memory but that is okay as core MM would still ignore > them as unusable memory for being PageReserved(). Right, pfn_valid() will return true for all memory, including MEMBLOCK_NOMAP. Since core mm deals with PageResrved() for memory used by the firmware, e.g. on x86, I don't see why it won't work on arm64. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <email@example.com> > > --- > > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 3 --- > > arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 4 ++-- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > > index e4e1b6550115..58e439046d05 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > > @@ -1040,9 +1040,6 @@ config NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK > > def_bool y > > depends on NUMA > > > > -config HOLES_IN_ZONE > > - def_bool y > > - > > source "kernel/Kconfig.hz" > > > > config ARCH_SPARSEMEM_ENABLE > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c > > index 258b1905ed4a..bb6dd406b1f0 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c > > @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ int pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn) > > > > /* > > * ZONE_DEVICE memory does not have the memblock entries. > > - * memblock_is_map_memory() check for ZONE_DEVICE based > > + * memblock_is_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 > > @@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ int pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn) > > return pfn_section_valid(ms, pfn); > > } > > #endif > > - return memblock_is_map_memory(addr); > > + return memblock_is_memory(addr); > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(pfn_valid); > > > > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-08 6:18 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-04-07 17:26 [RFC/RFT PATCH 0/3] " Mike Rapoport 2021-04-07 17:26 ` [RFC/RFT PATCH 1/3] memblock: update initialization of reserved pages Mike Rapoport 2021-04-08 5:16 ` Anshuman Khandual 2021-04-08 5:48 ` Mike Rapoport 2021-04-14 15:12 ` David Hildenbrand 2021-04-14 15:27 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2021-04-14 15:52 ` David Hildenbrand 2021-04-14 20:24 ` Mike Rapoport 2021-04-15 9:30 ` David Hildenbrand 2021-04-16 11:44 ` Mike Rapoport 2021-04-16 11:54 ` David Hildenbrand 2021-04-14 20:11 ` Mike Rapoport 2021-04-14 20:06 ` Mike Rapoport 2021-04-07 17:26 ` [RFC/RFT PATCH 2/3] arm64: decouple check whether pfn is normal memory from pfn_valid() Mike Rapoport 2021-04-08 5:14 ` Anshuman Khandual 2021-04-08 6:00 ` Mike Rapoport 2021-04-14 15:58 ` David Hildenbrand 2021-04-14 20:29 ` Mike Rapoport 2021-04-15 9:31 ` David Hildenbrand 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 2021-04-08 5:12 ` Anshuman Khandual 2021-04-08 6:17 ` Mike Rapoport [this message] 2021-04-08 5:19 ` [RFC/RFT PATCH 0/3] " Anshuman Khandual 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=YG6gFi5/3O2OsYYH@kernel.org \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 3/3] arm64: drop pfn_valid_within() and simplify pfn_valid()' \ /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).