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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D393FC433ED for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:58:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4226961220 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:58:32 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4226961220 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id D59C66B0036; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:58:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id D31136B006C; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:58:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id BD2806B0070; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:58:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0146.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.146]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DFEC6B0036 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:58:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin17.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56CD31801D2F4 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:58:31 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78031430022.17.3D63E03 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by imf04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D92C3C4 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:58:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1618415910; h=from:from: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=xuItTKmz5+Knqt1+vfq/OkDfdneEY+UbE9qRzfYYMnc=; b=gTIh5q2tAD6g1Su6ChtlHQbbygIsjHa5HRSaKxi1fKF8gXZ+RLsOlaQBQZfcrOKN5xPNry DWaqBqJzP7SmlpQI+pDzG+L2p+mMValf3Wozag9tdbtlbzQuv1RKIToj0Df6FPf6EwxaAM vKwlXhD5htSIE409GPPJbwKPz4Uccwo= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-535-cWyabcHzPJyvRV_5U8bh_w-1; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:58:28 -0400 X-MC-Unique: cWyabcHzPJyvRV_5U8bh_w-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id j3-20020a1c55030000b029012e7c06101aso571579wmb.5 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:58:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xuItTKmz5+Knqt1+vfq/OkDfdneEY+UbE9qRzfYYMnc=; b=jTdfR895bKpEZzQ8iOUxHMGcVRlQ0dRICkoIVePYLWFxFVtfuXpaiuXIfKkBq9be1h b9RhogY1a+DIMHmn1Wy81uWeOyruOFvB3RaYZNYtMsA7hrO6ypuvwZFWO532HZIqjm5m OHC2fVi0Uf89fXQzGHdzZ9s7hamYPM6lcs2xgOp3dvOQfzM07r9DxobcSn2HErH/X+KY m3YSlze4/b7qfA8j8aK5X1wNWQs8k03eNiHCcJfDK5jd8892melSNxzU9DBqPM8Y/pDr pXLzfaDBaunuPqeCDkYzZDAJY6CSRVxu32BcozBCiqd3vVkHXpc0O2x+HSicxZHl8UFU OxTg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ec46yX52FKs6lkfDuiopGOPyO8prqsTKJS0kklaL5A6a4/Tds 80BB32wp3wCXDUCQZ7Vbwxh1n86Q0FBi+fGB6SPLhWs9XJL7O8MjDaHXb0qgrkJjG7NrY1B2Obf XxCxUqUQwjLXaVbYVYciy19HzE8NRGQ3AZU5E9lDW8ixmZqynq6yyBciS35Q= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4689:: with SMTP id u9mr8195054wrq.10.1618415907510; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:58:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxGqSCJM5+og5DryDMutS2KeHgtQzF2BtH5xs7DH3i6DfTgoCDlW4C+HHfPtOlPuTkx6JlsgA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4689:: with SMTP id u9mr8195011wrq.10.1618415907152; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.3.132] (p5b0c6470.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [91.12.100.112]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y31sm5805675wmp.46.2021.04.14.08.58.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 2/3] arm64: decouple check whether pfn is normal memory from pfn_valid() To: Anshuman Khandual , Mike Rapoport , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Catalin Marinas , Marc Zyngier , Mark Rutland , Mike Rapoport , Will Deacon , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org References: <20210407172607.8812-1-rppt@kernel.org> <20210407172607.8812-3-rppt@kernel.org> <4a788546-b854-fd35-644a-f1d9075a9a78@arm.com> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: <9c0956f0-494e-5c6b-bdc2-d4213afd5e2f@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:58:26 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4a788546-b854-fd35-644a-f1d9075a9a78@arm.com> Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1D92C3C4 X-Stat-Signature: bcjqzeszb7ho5izbwdbznabei5qoimp1 Received-SPF: none (redhat.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf04; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com; client-ip=216.205.24.124 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1618415908-991377 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 08.04.21 07:14, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > On 4/7/21 10:56 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote: >> From: Mike Rapoport >> >> The intended semantics of pfn_valid() is to verify whether there is a >> struct page for the pfn in question and nothing else. > > Should there be a comment affirming this semantics interpretation, above the > generic pfn_valid() in include/linux/mmzone.h ? > >> >> Yet, on arm64 it is used to distinguish memory areas that are mapped in the >> linear map vs those that require ioremap() to access them. >> >> Introduce a dedicated pfn_is_memory() to perform such check and use it >> where appropriate. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 2 +- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/page.h | 1 + >> arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c | 2 +- >> arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 6 ++++++ >> arch/arm64/mm/ioremap.c | 4 ++-- >> arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 2 +- >> 6 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >> index 0aabc3be9a75..7e77fdf71b9d 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >> @@ -351,7 +351,7 @@ static inline void *phys_to_virt(phys_addr_t x) >> >> #define virt_addr_valid(addr) ({ \ >> __typeof__(addr) __addr = __tag_reset(addr); \ >> - __is_lm_address(__addr) && pfn_valid(virt_to_pfn(__addr)); \ >> + __is_lm_address(__addr) && pfn_is_memory(virt_to_pfn(__addr)); \ >> }) >> >> void dump_mem_limit(void); >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/page.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/page.h >> index 012cffc574e8..32b485bcc6ff 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/page.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/page.h >> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ void copy_highpage(struct page *to, struct page *from); >> typedef struct page *pgtable_t; >> >> extern int pfn_valid(unsigned long); >> +extern int pfn_is_memory(unsigned long); >> >> #include >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c >> index 8711894db8c2..ad2ea65a3937 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c >> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ void kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm) >> >> static bool kvm_is_device_pfn(unsigned long pfn) >> { >> - return !pfn_valid(pfn); >> + return !pfn_is_memory(pfn); >> } >> >> /* >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c >> index 3685e12aba9b..258b1905ed4a 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c >> @@ -258,6 +258,12 @@ int pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn) >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(pfn_valid); >> >> +int pfn_is_memory(unsigned long pfn) >> +{ >> + return memblock_is_map_memory(PFN_PHYS(pfn)); >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(pfn_is_memory);> + > > Should not this be generic though ? There is nothing platform or arm64 > specific in here. Wondering as pfn_is_memory() just indicates that the > pfn is linear mapped, should not it be renamed as pfn_is_linear_memory() > instead ? Regardless, it's fine either way. TBH, I dislike (generic) pfn_is_memory(). It feels like we're mixing concepts. NOMAP memory vs !NOMAP memory; even NOMAP is some kind of memory after all. pfn_is_map_memory() would be more expressive, although still sub-optimal. We'd actually want some kind of arm64-specific pfn_is_system_memory() or the inverse pfn_is_device_memory() -- to be improved. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb