linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] powerpc/mm: setting mmaped page cache property through device tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2a27d3730912012225h3deab5dao2211bc404d247192@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:25:47 +0800
From:	Li Yang <leoli@...escale.com>
To:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, paulus@...ba.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/mm: setting mmaped page cache property through 
	device tree

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Segher Boessenkool
<segher@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>> The scenario for the first case is that in a multicore system running
>> ASMP which means different OS runs on different cores.  They might
>> communicate through a shared memory region.  The region on every OS
>> need to be mapped with the same cache perperty to avoid cache paradox.
>
> This isn't true.  In ASMP, you cannot usually do coherency between
> the different CPUs at all.  Also, in most PowerPC implementations,

Coherency can't be achieved with proper configuration and management?  Why so?

> it is fine if one CPU maps a memory range as coherent while another
> maps it as non-coherent; sure, you have to be careful or you will

But we do want the shared region to be coherent.  So mappings should
have the same cacheability property.

> read stale data, but things won't wedge.
>
>> The scenario for the second case is to pre-allocate some memory to a
>> certain application or device (probably through mem=XXX kernel
>> parameter or limit through device tree).  The memory is not known to
>> kernel, but fully managed by the application/device.  We need being
>> able to map the region cachable for better performance.
>
> So make the memory known to the kernel, just tell the kernel not to
> use it.  If it's normal system RAM, just put it in the "memory" node
> and do a memreserve on it (or do something in your platform code); if
> it's some other memory, do a device driver for it, map it there.

Your solution is feasible.  But the memory allocation is a software
configuration.  IMHO, it should be better and easier addressed by
changing configurations(like mem parameter) rather than the kernel
platform code which should address hardware configuration.

- Leo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/