From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18DCC43334 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:57:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 30DF58D0180; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:57:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2BDC78D0171; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:57:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 185198D0180; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:57:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0014.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.14]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA6D8D0171 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:57:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D106C20F77 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:57:16 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79573062072.22.9DB038C Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) by imf31.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F4BD200A1 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:57:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kwepemi500016.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.54]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4LM92V072xzRhy5; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 19:53:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.178.157] (10.174.178.157) by kwepemi500016.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.220) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 19:57:09 +0800 Message-ID: <18c2b29b-f70c-bae8-c01e-2ac69aa9ccdd@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 19:57:08 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] memblock,arm64: Expand the static memblock memory table Content-Language: en-US To: Anshuman Khandual , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "rppt@kernel.org" , "will@kernel.org" CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "xuqiang (M)" References: <20220527091832.63489-1-zhouguanghui1@huawei.com> <2a492d62-8ce0-effe-b854-d0b58762be23@arm.com> From: Zhou Guanghui In-Reply-To: <2a492d62-8ce0-effe-b854-d0b58762be23@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.178.157] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.180) To kwepemi500016.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.220) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1655121436; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=2bcmFjmOj9xj4UOOEO5QGuc42Ufqzzy+gV7ojiJfOb9fYNyJw+XVltf/lD0TvIWx8TSmC0 IL7YRQOj3BYztQ608KN3f3vgcAAiJpiB6n83mN0H+oKBTDEEp4vV0N0IDgDrKCTFlg7dTX J+lmhKfHwcr8N8Ri3N+2V0Idh54UOqA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf31.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass (imf31.hostedemail.com: domain of zhouguanghui1@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.188 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=zhouguanghui1@huawei.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1655121436; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GRkkwFcZ0/C6BpPyXbyLze1STcMFvS59fKIcQaFclR8=; b=MhSNLvRWQWMgQSvnWSUCN5rmaYNQo1GPtdijw+UByiky7tHwrYUvGA1Epan2s0agJ6Q4dM /JD/jkkxgd9g6triPQ6fVbuzybg/yeWoRr1zI2o70Rv7005m7OdJ9UU0YyjmVnYnrs0026 thpNsdDDvv2bvukNSy5ij9lAGQvHi1A= X-Stat-Signature: asna47xqjt1ngsqo1e4jycn19tiyj39e X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1F4BD200A1 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam10 Authentication-Results: imf31.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass (imf31.hostedemail.com: domain of zhouguanghui1@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.188 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=zhouguanghui1@huawei.com X-HE-Tag: 1655121434-867487 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2022/6/13 14:38, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > > On 6/13/22 11:33, Zhouguanghui wrote: >> 在 2022/6/7 14:43, Anshuman Khandual 写道: >>> Hello Zhou, >>> >>> On 5/27/22 14:48, Zhou Guanghui wrote: >>>> In a system using HBM, a multi-bit ECC error occurs, and the BIOS >>>> will mark the corresponding area (for example, 2 MB) as unusable. >>>> When the system restarts next time, these areas are not reported >>>> or reported as EFI_UNUSABLE_MEMORY. Both cases lead to an increase >>>> in the number of memblocks, whereas EFI_UNUSABLE_MEMORY leads to a >>>> larger number of memblocks. >>>> >>>> For example, if the EFI_UNUSABLE_MEMORY type is reported: >>>> ... >>>> memory[0x92] [0x0000200834a00000-0x0000200835bfffff], 0x0000000001200000 bytes on node 7 flags: 0x0 >>>> memory[0x93] [0x0000200835c00000-0x0000200835dfffff], 0x0000000000200000 bytes on node 7 flags: 0x4 >>>> memory[0x94] [0x0000200835e00000-0x00002008367fffff], 0x0000000000a00000 bytes on node 7 flags: 0x0 >>>> memory[0x95] [0x0000200836800000-0x00002008369fffff], 0x0000000000200000 bytes on node 7 flags: 0x4 >>>> memory[0x96] [0x0000200836a00000-0x0000200837bfffff], 0x0000000001200000 bytes on node 7 flags: 0x0 >>>> memory[0x97] [0x0000200837c00000-0x0000200837dfffff], 0x0000000000200000 bytes on node 7 flags: 0x4 >>>> memory[0x98] [0x0000200837e00000-0x000020087fffffff], 0x0000000048200000 bytes on node 7 flags: 0x0 >>>> memory[0x99] [0x0000200880000000-0x0000200bcfffffff], 0x0000000350000000 bytes on node 6 flags: 0x0 >>>> memory[0x9a] [0x0000200bd0000000-0x0000200bd01fffff], 0x0000000000200000 bytes on node 6 flags: 0x4 >>>> memory[0x9b] [0x0000200bd0200000-0x0000200bd07fffff], 0x0000000000600000 bytes on node 6 flags: 0x0 >>>> memory[0x9c] [0x0000200bd0800000-0x0000200bd09fffff], 0x0000000000200000 bytes on node 6 flags: 0x4 >>>> memory[0x9d] [0x0000200bd0a00000-0x0000200fcfffffff], 0x00000003ff600000 bytes on node 6 flags: 0x0 >>>> memory[0x9e] [0x0000200fd0000000-0x0000200fd01fffff], 0x0000000000200000 bytes on node 6 flags: 0x4 >>>> memory[0x9f] [0x0000200fd0200000-0x0000200fffffffff], 0x000000002fe00000 bytes on node 6 flags: 0x0 >>>> ... >>> >>> Although this patch did not mention about a real world system requiring >>> this support, as been reported on the thread, Ampere Altra does seem to >>> get benefited. Regardless, it's always better to describe platform test >>> scenarios in more detail. >>> >> >> I encountered this scenario on Huawei Ascend ARM64 SoC. > > Please do mention that in the commit message. > I will add this in patch v4. >> >>>> >>>> The EFI memory map is parsed to construct the memblock arrays before >>>> the memblock arrays can be resized. As the result, memory regions >>>> beyond INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS are lost. >>>> >>>> Allow overriding memblock.memory array size with architecture defined >>>> INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGIONS and make arm64 to set >>>> INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGIONS to 1024 when CONFIG_EFI is enabled. >>> >>> Right, but first this needs to mention that INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGIONS >>> (new macro) is being added to replace INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS, representing >>> max memory regions in the memblock. Platform override comes afterwards. >>> >> >> Add a paragraph before the description,like this? >> >> Add a new macro INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGTIONS to replace >> INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGTIONS to define the size of the static memblock.memory >> array. > > Right. I will add this paragraph in patch v4. > >> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Zhou Guanghui >>>> Acked-by: Mike Rapoport >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 9 +++++++++ >>>> mm/memblock.c | 14 +++++++++----- >>>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >>>> index 0af70d9abede..eda61c0389c4 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >>>> @@ -364,6 +364,15 @@ void dump_mem_limit(void); >>>> # define INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS (INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + NR_CPUS + 1) >>>> #endif >>>> >>>> +/* >>>> + * memory regions which marked with flag MEMBLOCK_NOMAP may divide a continuous >>>> + * memory block into multiple parts. As a result, the number of memory regions >>>> + * is large. >>>> + */ >>> >>> As mentioned in the previous version's thread, >>> >>> This comment needs be more specific about this increased static array size, being >>> applicable ONLY for MEMBLOCK_NOMAP regions on EFI system with EFI_UNUSABLE_MEMORY >>> tagging/flag support. >>> >> >> EFI_UNUSABLE_MEMORY is only one type of the MEMBLOCK_NOMAP region, as >> shown in the is_usable_memory function. However, However, I currently >> have too many memblocks due to this flag. > > Okay, but adding EFI_UNUSABLE_MEMORY context in that comment will be helpful. > I'll add it to the comment in patch v4. >> >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI >>>> +#define INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGIONS 1024 >>> >>> Although 1024 seems adequate as compared to 128 memory regions in the memblock to >>> handle such error scenarios, but a co-relation with INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS would >>> be preferred similar to when INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS gets overridden. This >>> avoid a precedence when random numbers could get assigned in other archs later on. >>> >>> $git grep INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS arch/ >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:# define INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS (INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + NR_CPUS + 1) >>> arch/loongarch/include/asm/sparsemem.h:#define INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS (INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + NR_CPUS) >>> >>> Something like >>> >>> #define INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGIONS (INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS * 8) >>> >> >> I don't think this is necessary because INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS is not >> configurable. The newly added INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGIONS macro is >> customized for each platform. > > Even an existing macro INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS still depends on > INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS (arm64, loongarch) ? The point being, although > INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS is not configurable, it still does provide enough > base value, as compared to defining a random number in platforms which > will override INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGIONS. What is your concern in > making it dependent on INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS ? > In my opinion, the purpose of adding INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGTIONS is to specify a larger size on different platforms. In the future, the base value of INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGTIONS is adjusted to a larger value (for example, 256). On the arm64 platform, it is not necessary to adjust (256 * 8) INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGTIONS. Thanks!