Date:   Wed, 26 Oct 2022 18:51:16 +0800
From:   Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>
To:     WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LoongArch: Fix memsection size



On 2022/10/26 下午5:21, WANG Xuerui wrote:
> On 2022/10/26 15:56, Jianmin Lv wrote:
>> On LoongArch, the physical address space ranging from 0 to 0xfffffff is
>> always memory, which is in the low half of the memsection range from 0 to
>> 0x1fffffff with 512M memsection size, and the high half will be a hole 
>> with
>> invalid memory pages.
> 
> The description is incorrect. For systems with less than 512MiB of 
> memory for example, I believe not every address from 0x0 to 0x0fff_ffff 
> is valid; 

As far as I know, almost all designs use  0x0 to 0x0fff_ffff as memory 
even with 512M because it's difficult to set cpu to support a 
combination with memory and non-memory for 0x0 to 0x0fff_ffff.

> and regarding the latter part of the sentence, what you mean 
> by "invalid memory pages"...
> 
If with 512M memsection size, for the memsection from 0 to 0x1fffffff, 
low half (0 to 0xfffffff) is valid memory, and high half(0x10000000 to 
0x1fffffff ) is I/O registers (of chipsets and cpu), so high half is not 
memory, I think it's better to change *with invalid memory pages* to 
*which is not memory.*

>>
>> This situation may cause some issues. For example, the range of 
>> 0x10000000
>> to 0x1fffffff is io registers, which will be considered as valid 
>> memory range
>> since which is in the memsection of range of 0 to 0x1fffffff. During S3
> 
> ... turns out to be totally valid, only of the I/O kind. (This might be 
> a case of Chinglish that is actually conveying the incorrect meaning to 
> unaware readers.)
> 

The whole range of the 512M memsection will be totally valid by 
pfn_valid(), and let me try reduce the example description. :)


>> sleep and resume, these io registers will be saved and restored as 
>> valid memory
>> page (pfn_valid() of common version considers that all pages in a 
>> memsection
>> are valid), which will cause exception, especially when restoring 
>> during resume.
>>
>> We can use 256M size for memsection of LoongArch, or use the way as 
>> ARM64 to
>> walk through all memory memblock to check if a mem pfn is valid which 
>> maybe
>> lower performance. For simplicity, this patch just use the former way.
> 
> And the rest of the commit message is, unfortunately, a bit too verbose 
> and hard to understand in general. I have to look at the actual change 
> (luckily, a one-liner in this case) to confirm my understanding.
> 
> I think your intent is just to *avoid stepping into IO memory region 
> during suspend/resume by reducing the section size order by one*. 

Yes.


> Try reducing the verbosity of the commit message in v2?

Ok, let me try. :)

> I can't proofread and edit every commit due to limited time, so you have to practice and 
> improve your writing skills after all. I'll review that piece of text 
> afterwards. :)
> 
Ok, thanks.

>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/sparsemem.h 
>> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/sparsemem.h
>> index 3d18cdf1b069..05903b40a625 100644
>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/sparsemem.h
>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/sparsemem.h
>> @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
>>    * SECTION_SIZE_BITS        2^N: how big each section will be
>>    * MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS        2^N: how much memory we can have in that 
>> space
>>    */
>> -#define SECTION_SIZE_BITS    29 /* 2^29 = Largest Huge Page Size */
>> +#define SECTION_SIZE_BITS    28
>>   #define MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS    48
>>   #endif /* CONFIG_SPARSEMEM */
> 
> The change is trivial indeed but I'm not immediately giving the R-b.
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists