| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:08:10 +0800
From: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Sudarshan Rajagopalan <quic_sudaraja@...cinc.com>
Cc: 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()
Hi, Will,
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 5:34 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 14.07.22 14:34, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > Oh, Sudarshan Rajagopalan's Email has changed, Let's update.
> >
> > Huacai
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 5:47 PM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> +Dan Williams
> >> +Sudarshan Rajagopalan
> >>
> >> 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:
> >>>>>> diff --git a/mm/sparse-vmemmap.c b/mm/sparse-vmemmap.c
> >>>>>> index 33e2a1ceee72..6f2e40bb695d 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/mm/sparse-vmemmap.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/mm/sparse-vmemmap.c
> >>>>>> @@ -686,6 +686,60 @@ int __meminit vmemmap_populate_basepages(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> >>>>>> return vmemmap_populate_range(start, end, node, altmap, NULL);
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +void __weak __meminit vmemmap_set_pmd(pmd_t *pmd, void *p, int node,
> >>>>>> + unsigned long addr, unsigned long next)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +int __weak __meminit vmemmap_check_pmd(pmd_t *pmd, int node, unsigned long addr,
> >>>>>> + unsigned long next)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +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.
Huacai
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists