linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 03/12] mm/sparsemem: Add helpers track active portions of a section at boot

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <1556203394.3587.4.camel@suse.de>
Date:   Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:43:14 +0200
From:   Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        david@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/12] mm/sparsemem: Add helpers track active
 portions of a section at boot

On Wed, 2019-04-17 at 11:39 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Prepare for hot{plug,remove} of sub-ranges of a section by tracking a
> section active bitmask, each bit representing 2MB (SECTION_SIZE
> (128M) /
> map_active bitmask length (64)). If it turns out that 2MB is too
> large
> of an active tracking granularity it is trivial to increase the size
> of
> the map_active bitmap.
> 
> The implications of a partially populated section is that pfn_valid()
> needs to go beyond a valid_section() check and read the sub-section
> active ranges from the bitmask.
> 
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> Cc: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Hi Dan,

I am still going through the patchset but:
 
> +static unsigned long section_active_mask(unsigned long pfn,
> +		unsigned long nr_pages)
> +{
> +	int idx_start, idx_size;
> +	phys_addr_t start, size;
> +
> +	if (!nr_pages)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	start = PFN_PHYS(pfn);
> +	size = PFN_PHYS(min(nr_pages, PAGES_PER_SECTION
> +				- (pfn & ~PAGE_SECTION_MASK)));

We already picked the lowest value in section_active_init, didn't we?
This min() operations seems redundant to me here.

> +	size = ALIGN(size, SECTION_ACTIVE_SIZE);
> +
> +	idx_start = section_active_index(start);
> +	idx_size = section_active_index(size);
> +
> +	if (idx_size == 0)
> +		return -1;
> +	return ((1UL << idx_size) - 1) << idx_start;
> +}
> +
> +void section_active_init(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long nr_pages)
> +{
> +	int end_sec = pfn_to_section_nr(pfn + nr_pages - 1);
> +	int i, start_sec = pfn_to_section_nr(pfn);
> +
> +	if (!nr_pages)
> +		return;
> +
> +	for (i = start_sec; i <= end_sec; i++) {
> +		struct mem_section *ms;
> +		unsigned long mask;
> +		unsigned long pfns;

s/pfns/nr_pfns/ instead?

> +		pfns = min(nr_pages, PAGES_PER_SECTION
> +				- (pfn & ~PAGE_SECTION_MASK));
> +		mask = section_active_mask(pfn, pfns);
> +
> +		ms = __nr_to_section(i);
> +		pr_debug("%s: sec: %d mask: %#018lx\n", __func__, i,
> mask);
> +		ms->usage->map_active = mask;
> +
> +		pfn += pfns;
> +		nr_pages -= pfns;
> +	}
> +}

Although the code is not very complicated, it could use some comments
here and there I think.

> +
>  /* Record a memory area against a node. */
>  void __init memory_present(int nid, unsigned long start, unsigned
> long end)
>  {
> 
-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3