linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	kvmarm <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 1/3] memblock: update initialization of reserved pages
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 23:24:58 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YHdPmtpzFxHE9mAt@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3811547a-9057-3c80-3805-2e658488ac99@redhat.com>

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:52:57PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 14.04.21 17:27, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 17:14, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 07.04.21 19:26, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > 
> > > > The struct pages representing a reserved memory region are initialized
> > > > using reserve_bootmem_range() function. This function is called for each
> > > > reserved region just before the memory is freed from memblock to the buddy
> > > > page allocator.
> > > > 
> > > > The struct pages for MEMBLOCK_NOMAP regions are kept with the default
> > > > values set by the memory map initialization which makes it necessary to
> > > > have a special treatment for such pages in pfn_valid() and
> > > > pfn_valid_within().
> > > 
> > > I assume these pages are never given to the buddy, because we don't have
> > > a direct mapping. So to the kernel, it's essentially just like a memory
> > > hole with benefits.
> > > 
> > > I can spot that we want to export such memory like any special memory
> > > thingy/hole in /proc/iomem -- "reserved", which makes sense.
> > > 
> > > I would assume that MEMBLOCK_NOMAP is a special type of *reserved*
> > > memory. IOW, that for_each_reserved_mem_range() should already succeed
> > > on these as well -- we should mark anything that is MEMBLOCK_NOMAP
> > > implicitly as reserved. Or are there valid reasons not to do so? What
> > > can anyone do with that memory?
> > > 
> > > I assume they are pretty much useless for the kernel, right? Like other
> > > reserved memory ranges.
> > > 
> > 
> > On ARM, we need to know whether any physical regions that do not
> > contain system memory contain something with device semantics or not.
> > One of the examples is ACPI tables: these are in reserved memory, and
> > so they are not covered by the linear region. However, when the ACPI
> > core ioremap()s an arbitrary memory region, we don't know whether it
> > is mapping a memory region or a device region unless we keep track of
> > this in some way. (Device mappings require device attributes, but
> > firmware tables require memory attributes, as they might be accessed
> > using misaligned reads)
> 
> Using generically sounding NOMAP ("don't create direct mapping") to identify
> device regions feels like a hack. I know, it was introduced just for that
> purpose.
> 
> Looking at memblock_mark_nomap(), we consider "device regions"
> 
> 1) ACPI tables
> 
> 2) VIDEO_TYPE_EFI memory
> 
> 3) some device-tree regions in of/fdt.c
> 
> 
> IIUC, right now we end up creating a memmap for this NOMAP memory, but hide
> it away in pfn_valid(). This patch set at least fixes that.

Currently we have memmap entries with struct page set to defaults for the
NOMAP memory. AFAIU hiding them in pfn_valid()/pfn_valid_within() was a
solution to failures in pfn walkers that presumed that for a pfn_valid()
there will be a struct page that really reflects the state of that page.

> Assuming these pages are never mapped to user space via the struct page
> (which better be the case), we could further use a new pagetype to mark
> these pages in a special way, such that we can identify them directly via
> pfn_to_page().

Not sure we really need a new pagetype here, PG_Reserved seems to be quite
enough to say "don't touch this".  I generally agree that we could make
PG_Reserved a PageType and then have several sub-types for reserved memory.
This definitely will add clarity but I'm not sure that this justifies
amount of churn and effort required to audit uses of PageResrved().
 
> Then, we could mostly avoid having to query memblock at runtime to figure
> out that this is special memory. This would obviously be an extension to
> this series. Just a thought. 

Stop pushing memblock out of kernel! ;-)

Now, seriously, we can minimize memblock involvement in run-time and this
series in yet another step in that direction.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-14 20:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-07 17:26 [RFC/RFT PATCH 0/3] arm64: drop pfn_valid_within() and simplify pfn_valid() 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 [this message]
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
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=YHdPmtpzFxHE9mAt@kernel.org \
    --to=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 1/3] memblock: update initialization of reserved pages' \
    /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).