From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: "guanghui.fgh" <guanghuifeng@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com, jianyong.wu@arm.com,
james.morse@arm.com, quic_qiancai@quicinc.com,
christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, jonathan@marek.ca,
mark.rutland@arm.com, thunder.leizhen@huawei.com,
anshuman.khandual@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rppt@kernel.org,
geert+renesas@glider.be, ardb@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
yaohongbo@linux.alibaba.com,
alikernel-developer@linux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] arm64: mm: fix linear mem mapping access performance degradation
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2022 17:38:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220704163815.GA32177@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6977c692-78ca-5a67-773e-0389c85f2650@linux.alibaba.com>
On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 10:34:07PM +0800, guanghui.fgh wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> 在 2022/7/4 22:23, Will Deacon 写道:
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 10:11:27PM +0800, guanghui.fgh wrote:
> > > 在 2022/7/4 21:15, Will Deacon 写道:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 08:05:59PM +0800, guanghui.fgh wrote:
> > > > > > > 1.Quoted messages from arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Memory reservation for crash kernel either done early or deferred
> > > > > > > depending on DMA memory zones configs (ZONE_DMA) --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In absence of ZONE_DMA configs arm64_dma_phys_limit initialized
> > > > > > > here instead of max_zone_phys(). This lets early reservation of
> > > > > > > crash kernel memory which has a dependency on arm64_dma_phys_limit.
> > > > > > > Reserving memory early for crash kernel allows linear creation of block
> > > > > > > mappings (greater than page-granularity) for all the memory bank rangs.
> > > > > > > In this scheme a comparatively quicker boot is observed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If ZONE_DMA configs are defined, crash kernel memory reservation
> > > > > > > is delayed until DMA zone memory range size initialization performed in
> > > > > > > zone_sizes_init(). The defer is necessary to steer clear of DMA zone
> > > > > > > memory range to avoid overlap allocation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [[[
> > > > > > > So crash kernel memory boundaries are not known when mapping all bank memory
> > > > > > > ranges, which otherwise means not possible to exclude crash kernel range
> > > > > > > from creating block mappings so page-granularity mappings are created for
> > > > > > > the entire memory range.
> > > > > > > ]]]"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Namely, the init order: memblock init--->linear mem mapping(4k mapping for
> > > > > > > crashkernel, requirinig page-granularity changing))--->zone dma
> > > > > > > limit--->reserve crashkernel.
> > > > > > > So when enable ZONE DMA and using crashkernel, the mem mapping using 4k
> > > > > > > mapping.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I understand that is how things work today but I'm saying that we may
> > > > > > as well leave the crashkernel mapped (at block granularity) if
> > > > > > !can_set_direct_map() and then I think your patch becomes a lot simpler.
> > > > >
> > > > > But Page-granularity mapppings are necessary for crash kernel memory range
> > > > > for shrinking its size via /sys/kernel/kexec_crash_size interfac(Quoted from
> > > > > arch/arm64/mm/init.c).
> > > > > So this patch split block/section mapping to 4k page-granularity mapping for
> > > > > crashkernel mem.
> > > >
> > > > Why? I don't see why the mapping granularity is relevant at all if we
> > > > always leave the whole thing mapped.
> > > >
> > > There is another reason.
> > >
> > > When loading crashkernel finish, the do_kexec_load will use
> > > arch_kexec_protect_crashkres to invalid all the pagetable for crashkernel
> > > mem(protect crashkernel mem from access).
> > >
> > > arch_kexec_protect_crashkres--->set_memory_valid--->...--->apply_to_pmd_range
> > >
> > > In the apply_to_pmd_range, there is a judement: BUG_ON(pud_huge(*pud)). And
> > > if the crashkernel use block/section mapping, there will be some error.
> > >
> > > Namely, it's need to use non block/section mapping for crashkernel mem
> > > before shringking.
> >
> > Well, yes, but we can change arch_kexec_[un]protect_crashkres() not to do
> > that if we're leaving the thing mapped, no?
> >
> I think we should use arch_kexec_[un]protect_crashkres for crashkernel mem.
>
> Because when invalid crashkernel mem pagetable, there is no chance to rd/wr
> the crashkernel mem by mistake.
>
> If we don't use arch_kexec_[un]protect_crashkres to invalid crashkernel mem
> pagetable, there maybe some write operations to these mem by mistake which
> may cause crashkernel boot error and vmcore saving error.
I don't really buy this line of reasoning. The entire main kernel is
writable, so why do we care about protecting the crashkernel so much? The
_code_ to launch the crash kernel is writable! If you care about preventing
writes to memory which should not be writable, then you should use
rodata=full.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-04 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-02 15:57 Guanghui Feng
2022-07-04 10:35 ` Will Deacon
2022-07-04 10:58 ` guanghui.fgh
2022-07-04 11:14 ` Will Deacon
2022-07-04 12:05 ` guanghui.fgh
2022-07-04 13:15 ` Will Deacon
2022-07-04 13:41 ` guanghui.fgh
2022-07-04 14:11 ` guanghui.fgh
2022-07-04 14:23 ` Will Deacon
2022-07-04 14:34 ` guanghui.fgh
2022-07-04 16:38 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2022-07-04 17:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2022-07-05 8:35 ` Baoquan He
2022-07-05 9:52 ` Will Deacon
2022-07-05 12:07 ` guanghui.fgh
2022-07-05 12:11 ` Will Deacon
2022-07-05 12:27 ` guanghui.fgh
2022-07-05 12:56 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-07-05 13:17 ` guanghui.fgh
2022-07-05 15:02 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-07-05 15:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-07-05 15:57 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-07-05 17:05 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-07-05 20:45 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-07-06 2:49 ` guanghui.fgh
2022-07-06 7:43 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-07-06 10:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-07-06 13:54 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-07-06 15:18 ` guanghui.fgh
2022-07-06 15:30 ` guanghui.fgh
2022-07-06 15:40 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-07-07 17:02 ` guanghui.fgh
2022-07-08 12:28 ` [PATCH RESEND " guanghui.fgh
2022-07-10 13:44 ` [PATCH v5] " Guanghui Feng
2022-07-10 14:32 ` guanghui.fgh
2022-07-10 15:33 ` guanghui.fgh
2022-07-18 13:10 ` Will Deacon
2022-07-25 6:46 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-07-05 2:44 ` [PATCH v4] " guanghui.fgh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220704163815.GA32177@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alikernel-developer@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=guanghuifeng@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jianyong.wu@arm.com \
--cc=jonathan@marek.ca \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=quic_qiancai@quicinc.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=thunder.leizhen@huawei.com \
--cc=yaohongbo@linux.alibaba.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox