[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <78d13292-0cfe-31b6-7a9c-daf7fb7f3d23@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:40:36 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Steven Price <Steven.Price@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Sri Krishna chowdary <schowdary@...dia.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7] mm/debug: Add tests validating architecture page table
helpers
On 10/25/2019 02:22 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 25/10/2019 à 10:24, Anshuman Khandual a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On 10/25/2019 12:41 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 25/10/2019 à 07:52, Qian Cai a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 24, 2019, at 11:45 PM, Anshuman Khandual <Anshuman.Khandual@....com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing specific. But just tested this with x86 defconfig with relevant configs
>>>>> which are required for this test. Not sure if it involved W=1.
>>>>
>>>> No, it will not. It needs to run like,
>>>>
>>>> make W=1 -j 64 2>/tmp/warns
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are we talking about this peace of code ?
>>>
>>> +static unsigned long __init get_random_vaddr(void)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long random_vaddr, random_pages, total_user_pages;
>>> +
>>> + total_user_pages = (TASK_SIZE - FIRST_USER_ADDRESS) / PAGE_SIZE;
>>> +
>>> + random_pages = get_random_long() % total_user_pages;
>>> + random_vaddr = FIRST_USER_ADDRESS + random_pages * PAGE_SIZE;
>>> +
>>> + WARN_ON((random_vaddr > TASK_SIZE) ||
>>> + (random_vaddr < FIRST_USER_ADDRESS));
>>> + return random_vaddr;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>
>>> ramdom_vaddr is unsigned,
>>> random_pages is unsigned and lower than total_user_pages
>>>
>>> So the max value random_vaddr can get is FIRST_USER_ADDRESS + ((TASK_SIZE - FIRST_USER_ADDRESS - 1) / PAGE_SIZE) * PAGE_SIZE = TASK_SIZE - 1
>>> And the min value random_vaddr can get is FIRST_USER_ADDRESS (that's when random_pages = 0)
>>
>> That's right.
>>
>>>
>>> So the WARN_ON() is just unneeded, isn't it ?
>>
>> It is just a sanity check on possible vaddr values before it's corresponding
>> page table mappings could be created. If it's worth to drop this in favor of
>> avoiding these unwanted warning messages on x86, will go ahead with it as it
>> is not super important.
>>
>
> But you are checking what ? That the compiler does calculation correctly or what ?
IIRC, probably this was for later if and when the vaddr calculation becomes
dependent on other factors rather than this simple arithmetic involving start
and end of process address space on a platform.
> As mentionned just above, based on the calculation done, what you are testing cannot happen, so I'm having a hard time understanding what kind of sanity check it can be.
You are right.
>
> Can you give an exemple of a situation which could trigger the warning ?
I was mistaken. We dont need those checks for now, hence will drop them next time.
>
> Christophe
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists