linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/23] device-dax: Support sub-dividing soft-reserved ranges

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]
Date:   Fri, 21 Aug 2020 23:43:50 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
        Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>, Jia He <justin.he@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
        Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>,
        Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Maling list - DRI developers 
        <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/23] device-dax: Support sub-dividing soft-reserved ranges



> Am 21.08.2020 um 23:34 schrieb David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>:
> 
> 
> 
>>> Am 21.08.2020 um 23:17 schrieb Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:30 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 21.08.20 20:27, Dan Williams wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 3:15 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. On x86-64, e820 indicates "soft-reserved" memory. This memory is not
>>>>>>> automatically used in the buddy during boot, but remains untouched
>>>>>>> (similar to pmem). But as it involves ACPI as well, it could also be
>>>>>>> used on arm64 (-e820), correct?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Correct, arm64 also gets the EFI support for enumerating memory this
>>>>>> way. However, I would clarify that whether soft-reserved is given to
>>>>>> the buddy allocator by default or not is the kernel's policy choice,
>>>>>> "buddy-by-default" is ok and is what will happen anyways with older
>>>>>> kernels on platforms that enumerate a memory range this way.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is "soft-reserved" then the right terminology for that? It sounds very
>>>>> x86-64/e820 specific. Maybe a compressed for of "performance
>>>>> differentiated memory" might be a better fit to expose to user space, no?
>>>> 
>>>> No. The EFI "Specific Purpose" bit is an attribute independent of
>>>> e820, it's x86-Linux that entangles those together. There is no
>>>> requirement for platform firmware to use that designation even for
>>>> drastic performance differentiation between ranges, and conversely
>>>> there is no requirement that memory *with* that designation has any
>>>> performance difference compared to the default memory pool. So it
>>>> really is a reservation policy about a memory range to keep out of the
>>>> buddy allocator by default.
>>> 
>>> Okay, still "soft-reserved" is x86-64 specific, no?
>> 
>> There's nothing preventing other EFI archs, or a similar designation
>> in another firmware spec, picking up this policy.
>> 
>>> (AFAIK,
>>> "soft-reserved" will be visible in /proc/iomem, or am I confusing
>>> stuff?)
>> 
>> No, you're correct.
>> 
>>> IOW, it "performance differentiated" is not universally
>>> applicable, maybe  "specific purpose memory" is ?
>> 
>> Those bikeshed colors don't seem an improvement to me.
>> 
>> "Soft-reserved" actually tells you something about the kernel policy
>> for the memory. The criticism of "specific purpose" that led to
>> calling it "soft-reserved" in Linux is the fact that "specific" is
>> undefined as far as the firmware knows, and "specific" may have
>> different applications based on the platform user. "Soft-reserved"
>> like "Reserved" tells you that a driver policy might be in play for
>> that memory.
>> 
>> Also note that the current color of the bikeshed has already shipped since v5.5:
>> 
>>  262b45ae3ab4 x86/efi: EFI soft reservation to E820 enumeration
>> 
> 
> I was asking because I was struggling to even understand what „soft-reserved“ is and I could bet most people have no clue what that is supposed to be.
> 
> In contrast „persistent memory“ or „special purpose memory“ in /proc/iomem is something normal (Linux using) human beings can understand.

Obviously s/normal/most/

Cheers!