[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <23e5eb93-a39c-c68e-eac1-c5ccf9036079@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 17:40:35 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] arm64/mm: Fix pfn_valid() for ZONE_DEVICE based
memory
On 2/11/21 5:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 06:55:53PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 09:20:39AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> On 2/2/21 6:26 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 02.02.21 13:51, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 01:39:29PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>> As I expressed already, long term we should really get rid of the arm64
>>>>>> variant and rather special-case the generic one. Then we won't go out of
>>>>>> sync - just as it happened with ZONE_DEVICE handling here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does this have to be long term? This ZONE_DEVICE stuff could be the
>>>>> carrot on the stick :)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I suggested to do it now, but Anshuman convinced me that doing a
>>>> simple fix upfront might be cleaner --- for example when it comes to
>>>> backporting :)
>>>
>>> Right. The current pfn_valid() breaks for ZONE_DEVICE memory and this fixes
>>> the problem in the present context which can be easily backported if required.
>>>
>>> Changing or rather overhauling the generic code with new configs as proposed
>>> earlier (which I am planning to work on subsequently) would definitely be an
>>> improvement for the current pfn_valid() situation in terms of maintainability
>>> but then it should not stop us from fixing the problem now.
>>
>> Alright, I've mulled this over a bit. I don't agree that this patch helps
>> with maintainability (quite the opposite, in fact), but perfection is the
>> enemy of the good so I'll queue the series for 5.12. However, I'll revert
>> the changes at the first sign of a problem, so please do work towards a
>> generic solution which can replace this in the medium term.
>
> ... and dropped. These patches appear to be responsible for a boot
> regression reported by CKI:
Ahh, boot regression ? These patches only change the behaviour
for non boot memory only.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/cki.8D1CB60FEC.K6NJMEFQPV@redhat.com
Will look into the logs and see if there is something pointing to
the problem.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists