linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] powerpc: get hugetlbpage handling more generic

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: <f4f6dfc6-92e5-fa98-6dcf-6da0bf8aa5e3@c-s.fr>
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2016 07:34:48 +0100
From:   Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To:     Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] powerpc: get hugetlbpage handling more generic



Le 06/12/2016 à 02:18, Scott Wood a écrit :
> On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 10:11 +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Today there are two implementations of hugetlbpages which are managed
>> by exclusive #ifdefs:
>> * FSL_BOOKE: several directory entries points to the same single hugepage
>> * BOOK3S: one upper level directory entry points to a table of hugepages
>>
>> In preparation of implementation of hugepage support on the 8xx, we
>> need a mix of the two above solutions, because the 8xx needs both cases
>> depending on the size of pages:
>> * In 4k page size mode, each PGD entry covers a 4M bytes area. It means
>> that 2 PGD entries will be necessary to cover an 8M hugepage while a
>> single PGD entry will cover 8x 512k hugepages.
>> * In 16 page size mode, each PGD entry covers a 64M bytes area. It means
>> that 8x 8M hugepages will be covered by one PGD entry and 64x 512k
>> hugepages will be covers by one PGD entry.
>>
>> This patch:
>> * removes #ifdefs in favor of if/else based on the range sizes
>> * merges the two huge_pte_alloc() functions as they are pretty similar
>> * merges the two hugetlbpage_init() functions as they are pretty similar
> [snip]
>> @@ -860,16 +803,34 @@ static int __init hugetlbpage_init(void)
>>  		 * if we have pdshift and shift value same, we don't
>>  		 * use pgt cache for hugepd.
>>  		 */
>> -		if (pdshift != shift) {
>> +		if (pdshift > shift) {
>>  			pgtable_cache_add(pdshift - shift, NULL);
>>  			if (!PGT_CACHE(pdshift - shift))
>>  				panic("hugetlbpage_init(): could not create
>> "
>>  				      "pgtable cache for %d bit
>> pagesize\n", shift);
>>  		}
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_FSL_BOOK3E
>> +		else if (!hugepte_cache) {
>
> This else never triggers on book3e, because the way this function calculates
> pdshift is wrong for book3e (it uses PyD_SHIFT instead of HUGEPD_PxD_SHIFT).
>  We later get OOMs because huge_pte_alloc() calculates pdshift correctly,
> tries to use hugepte_cache, and fails.

Ok, I'll check it again, I was expecting it to still work properly on 
book3e, because after applying patch 3 it works properly on the 8xx.

>
> If the point of this patch is to remove the compile-time decision on whether
> to do things the book3e way, why are there still ifdefs such as the ones
> controlling the definition of HUGEPD_PxD_SHIFT?  How does what you're doing on
> 8xx (for certain page sizes) differ from book3e?

Some of the things done for book3e are common to 8xx, but differ from 
book3s. For that reason, in the following patch (3/3), there is in 
several places:
-#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_FSL_BOOK3E
+#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_FSL_BOOK3E) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_8xx)

Christophe