Date:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 14:54:45 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
CC:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Sudarshan Rajagopalan <quic_sudaraja@...cinc.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>,
        "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        <loongarch@...ts.linux.dev>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@...ngson.cn>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Xuerui Wang <kernel@...0n.name>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Feiyang Chen <chenfeiyang@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/4] mm/sparse-vmemmap: Generalise
 vmemmap_populate_hugepages()

Huacai Chen wrote:
> Hi, Will,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 5:55 PM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:08:10AM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 5:34 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > On 14.07.22 14:34, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 5:47 PM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:17 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 09:07:59PM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 5:29 PM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 07:25:25PM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> +int __meminit vmemmap_populate_hugepages(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> > > > >>>>>> +                                      int node, struct vmem_altmap *altmap)
> > > > >>>>>> +{
> > > > >>>>>> +     unsigned long addr;
> > > > >>>>>> +     unsigned long next;
> > > > >>>>>> +     pgd_t *pgd;
> > > > >>>>>> +     p4d_t *p4d;
> > > > >>>>>> +     pud_t *pud;
> > > > >>>>>> +     pmd_t *pmd;
> > > > >>>>>> +
> > > > >>>>>> +     for (addr = start; addr < end; addr = next) {
> > > > >>>>>> +             next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
> > > > >>>>>> +
> > > > >>>>>> +             pgd = vmemmap_pgd_populate(addr, node);
> > > > >>>>>> +             if (!pgd)
> > > > >>>>>> +                     return -ENOMEM;
> > > > >>>>>> +
> > > > >>>>>> +             p4d = vmemmap_p4d_populate(pgd, addr, node);
> > > > >>>>>> +             if (!p4d)
> > > > >>>>>> +                     return -ENOMEM;
> > > > >>>>>> +
> > > > >>>>>> +             pud = vmemmap_pud_populate(p4d, addr, node);
> > > > >>>>>> +             if (!pud)
> > > > >>>>>> +                     return -ENOMEM;
> > > > >>>>>> +
> > > > >>>>>> +             pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
> > > > >>>>>> +             if (pmd_none(READ_ONCE(*pmd))) {
> > > > >>>>>> +                     void *p;
> > > > >>>>>> +
> > > > >>>>>> +                     p = vmemmap_alloc_block_buf(PMD_SIZE, node, altmap);
> > > > >>>>>> +                     if (p) {
> > > > >>>>>> +                             vmemmap_set_pmd(pmd, p, node, addr, next);
> > > > >>>>>> +                             continue;
> > > > >>>>>> +                     } else if (altmap)
> > > > >>>>>> +                             return -ENOMEM; /* no fallback */
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Why do you return -ENOMEM if 'altmap' here? That seems to be different to
> > > > >>>>> what we currently have on arm64 and it's not clear to me why we're happy
> > > > >>>>> with an altmap for the pmd case, but not for the pte case.
> > > > >>>> The generic version is the same as X86. It seems that ARM64 always
> > > > >>>> fallback whether there is an altmap, but X86 only fallback in the no
> > > > >>>> altmap case. I don't know the reason of X86, can Dan Williams give
> > > > >>>> some explaination?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Right, I think we need to understand the new behaviour here before we adopt
> > > > >>> it on arm64.
> > > > >> Hi, Dan,
> > > > >> Could you please tell us the reason? Thanks.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> And Sudarshan,
> > > > >> You are the author of adding a fallback mechanism to ARM64,  do you
> > > > >> know why ARM64 is different from X86 (only fallback in no altmap
> > > > >> case)?
> > > >
> > > > I think that's a purely theoretical issue: I assume that in any case we
> > > > care about, the altmap should be reasonably sized and aligned such that
> > > > this will always succeed.
> > > >
> > > > To me it even sounds like the best idea to *consistently* fail if there
> > > > is no more space in the altmap, even if we'd have to fallback to PTE
> > > > (again, highly unlikely that this is relevant in practice). Could
> > > > indicate an altmap-size configuration issue.
> > >
> > > Does David's explanation make things clear? Moreover, I think Dan's
> > > dedicated comments "no fallback" implies that his design is carefully
> > > considered. So I think the generic version using the X86 logic is just
> > > OK.
> >
> > I think the comment isn't worth the metaphorical paper that it's written
> > on! If you can bulk it up a bit based on David's reasoning, then that would
> > help. But yes, I'm happy with the code now, thanks both.
> OK, I will add a detailed comment here.

Apologies for coming late to the party here, original ping came while I
was on vacation and I only just now noticed the direct questions. All
resolved now or is a question still pending?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists