| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <570B8118.1010809@hisilicon.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:48:56 +0800
From: Chen Feng <puck.chen@...ilicon.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
CC: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, <mhocko@...e.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Dan Zhao <dan.zhao@...ilicon.com>,
Yiping Xu <xuyiping@...ilicon.com>, <puck.chen@...mail.com>,
<albert.lubing@...ilicon.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
<suzhuangluan@...ilicon.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxarm@...wei.com>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
<oliver.fu@...ilicon.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<robin.murphy@....com>, <yudongbin@...licon.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<saberlily.xia@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: mem-model: add flatmem model for arm64
On 2016/4/11 17:59, Chen Feng wrote:
> Hi Ard,
>
> On 2016/4/11 16:00, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 11 April 2016 at 09:55, Chen Feng <puck.chen@...ilicon.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Ard,
>>>
>>> On 2016/4/11 15:35, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>> On 11 April 2016 at 04:49, Chen Feng <puck.chen@...ilicon.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi will,
>>>>> Thanks for review.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016/4/7 22:21, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 04:22:51PM +0800, Chen Feng wrote:
>>>>>>> We can reduce the memory allocated at mem-map
>>>>>>> by flatmem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> currently, the default memory-model in arm64 is
>>>>>>> sparse memory. The mem-map array is not freed in
>>>>>>> this scene. If the physical address is too long,
>>>>>>> it will reserved too much memory for the mem-map
>>>>>>> array.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you elaborate a bit more on this, please? We use the vmemmap, so any
>>>>>> spaces between memory banks only burns up virtual space. What exactly is
>>>>>> the problem you're seeing that makes you want to use flatmem (which is
>>>>>> probably unsuitable for the majority of arm64 machines).
>>>>>>
>>>>> The root cause we want to use flat-mem is the mam_map alloced in sparse-mem
>>>>> is not freed.
>>>>>
>>>>> take a look at here:
>>>>> arm64/mm/init.c
>>>>> void __init mem_init(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> #ifndef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP
>>>>> free_unused_memmap();
>>>>> #endif
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Memory layout (3GB)
>>>>>
>>>>> 0 1.5G 2G 3.5G 4G
>>>>> | | | | |
>>>>> +--------------+------+---------------+--------------+
>>>>> | MEM | hole | MEM | IO (regs) |
>>>>> +--------------+------+---------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Memory layout (4GB)
>>>>>
>>>>> 0 3.5G 4G 4.5G
>>>>> | | | |
>>>>> +-------------------------------------+--------------+-------+
>>>>> | MEM | IO (regs) | MEM |
>>>>> +-------------------------------------+--------------+-------+
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, the sparse memory section is 1GB.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3GB ddr: the 1.5 ~2G and 3.5 ~ 4G are holes.
>>>>> 3GB ddr: the 3.5 ~ 4G and 4.5 ~ 5G are holes.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will alloc 1G/4K * (struct page) memory for mem_map array.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, this is incorrect. Sparsemem vmemmap only allocates struct pages
>>>> for memory regions that are actually populated.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, on the Foundation model with 4 GB of memory, you may see
>>>> something like this in the boot log
>>>>
>>>> [ 0.000000] vmemmap : 0xffffffbdc0000000 - 0xffffffbfc0000000
>>>> ( 8 GB maximum)
>>>> [ 0.000000] 0xffffffbdc0000000 - 0xffffffbde2000000
>>>> ( 544 MB actual)
>>>>
>>>> but in reality, only the following regions have been allocated
>>>>
>>>> ---[ vmemmap start ]---
>>>> 0xffffffbdc0000000-0xffffffbdc2000000 32M RW NX SHD AF
>>>> BLK UXN MEM/NORMAL
>>>> 0xffffffbde0000000-0xffffffbde2000000 32M RW NX SHD AF
>>>> BLK UXN MEM/NORMAL
>>>> ---[ vmemmap end ]---
>>>>
>>>> so only 64 MB is used to back 4 GB of RAM with struct pages, which is
>>>> minimal. Moving to flatmem will not reduce the memory footprint at
>>>> all.
>>>
>>> Yes,but the populate is section, which is 1GB. Take a look at the above
>>> memory layout.
>>>
>>> The section 1G ~ 2G is a section. But 1.5G ~ 2G is a hole.
>>>
>>> The section 3G ~ 4G is a section. But 3.5G ~ 4G is a hole.
>>>>> 0 1.5G 2G 3.5G 4G
>>>>> | | | | |
>>>>> +--------------+------+---------------+--------------+
>>>>> | MEM | hole | MEM | IO (regs) |
>>>>> +--------------+------+---------------+--------------+
>>> The hole in 1.5G ~ 2G is also allocated mem-map array. And also with the 3.5G ~ 4G.
>>>
>>
>> No, it is not. It may be covered by a section, but that does not mean
>> sparsemem vmemmap will actually allocate backing for it. The
>> granularity used by sparsemem vmemmap on a 4k pages kernel is 128 MB,
>> due to the fact that the backing is performed at PMD granularity.
>>
>> Please, could you share the contents of the vmemmap section in
>> /sys/kernel/debug/kernel_page_tables of your system running with
>> sparsemem vmemmap enabled? You will need to set CONFIG_ARM64_PTDUMP=y
>>
>
> Please see the pg-tables below.
>
>
> With sparse and vmemmap enable.
>
> ---[ vmemmap start ]---
> 0xffffffbdc0200000-0xffffffbdc4800000 70M RW NX SHD AF UXN MEM/NORMAL
> ---[ vmemmap end ]---
>
>
> The board is 4GB, and the memap is 70MB
> 1G memory --- 14MB mem_map array.
> So the 4GB has 5 sections, which used 5 * 14MB memory.
>
>
Sorry, 1G memory is 16GB
5 sections is 5 * 16 = 80MB
1G / 4K * (struct page) 64B = 16MB
I don't know why the vmemap dump in pg-tables is 70MB.
I add hack code in vmemmap_populate sparse_mem_map_populate.
here is the log:
sparse_mem_map_populate 188 start ffffffbdc0000000 end ffffffbdc1000000 PAGES_PER_SECTION 40000 nid 0
vmemmap_populate 549 size 200000 total 200000 addr ffffffbdc0000000
vmemmap_populate 549 size 200000 total 400000 addr ffffffbdc0200000
vmemmap_populate 549 size 200000 total 600000 addr ffffffbdc0400000
vmemmap_populate 549 size 200000 total 800000 addr ffffffbdc0600000
vmemmap_populate 549 size 200000 total a00000 addr ffffffbdc0800000
vmemmap_populate 549 size 200000 total c00000 addr ffffffbdc0a00000
vmemmap_populate 549 size 200000 total e00000 addr ffffffbdc0c00000
vmemmap_populate 549 size 200000 total 1000000 addr ffffffbdc0e00000
sparse_mem_map_populate 188 start ffffffbdc1000000 end ffffffbdc2000000 PAGES_PER_SECTION 40000 nid 0
...
sparse_mem_map_populate 188 start ffffffbdc2000000 end ffffffbdc3000000 PAGES_PER_SECTION 40000 nid 0
sparse_mem_map_populate 188 start ffffffbdc3000000 end ffffffbdc4000000 PAGES_PER_SECTION 40000 nid 0
sparse_mem_map_populate 188 start ffffffbdc4000000 end ffffffbdc5000000 PAGES_PER_SECTION 40000 nid 0
With 4GB memory, it allocated 2MB * 8 * 5 = 80MB.
> 0 3.5G 4G 4.5G
> | | | |
> +-------------------------------------+--------------+-------+
> | MEM | IO (regs) | MEM |
> +-------------------------------------+--------------+-------+
4GB memory ,5 sections. 80MB mem_map allocated.
>
>
>
>
>> .
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists