From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] arm64: decouple check whether pfn is in linear map from pfn_valid()
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:32:55 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YH+5ByJUSSXY3kU5@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <29b51a80-1543-fcec-6f5b-5ae21b78e1e9@redhat.com>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 05:57:57PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 20.04.21 11:09, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> >
> > The intended semantics of pfn_valid() is to verify whether there is a
> > struct page for the pfn in question and nothing else.
> >
> > 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_map_memory() wrapper for
> > memblock_is_map_memory() to perform such check and use it where
> > appropriate.
> >
> > Using a wrapper allows to avoid cyclic include dependencies.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > 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..194f9f993d30 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_map_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..99a6da91f870 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_map_memory(unsigned long);
> > #include <asm/memory.h>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > index 8711894db8c2..23dd99e29b23 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_map_memory(pfn);
> > }
> > /*
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> > index 3685e12aba9b..c54e329aca15 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_map_memory(unsigned long pfn)
> > +{
>
> I think you might have to add (see pfn_valid())
>
> if (PHYS_PFN(PFN_PHYS(pfn)) != pfn)
> return 0;
>
> to catch false positives.
Yeah, makes sense.
> > + return memblock_is_map_memory(PFN_PHYS(pfn));
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(pfn_is_map_memory);
> > +
> > static phys_addr_t memory_limit = PHYS_ADDR_MAX;
> > /*
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/ioremap.c b/arch/arm64/mm/ioremap.c
> > index b5e83c46b23e..b7c81dacabf0 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/ioremap.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/ioremap.c
> > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ static void __iomem *__ioremap_caller(phys_addr_t phys_addr, size_t size,
> > /*
> > * Don't allow RAM to be mapped.
> > */
> > - if (WARN_ON(pfn_valid(__phys_to_pfn(phys_addr))))
> > + if (WARN_ON(pfn_is_map_memory(__phys_to_pfn(phys_addr))))
> > return NULL;
> > area = get_vm_area_caller(size, VM_IOREMAP, caller);
> > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(iounmap);
> > void __iomem *ioremap_cache(phys_addr_t phys_addr, size_t size)
> > {
> > /* For normal memory we already have a cacheable mapping. */
> > - if (pfn_valid(__phys_to_pfn(phys_addr)))
> > + if (pfn_is_map_memory(__phys_to_pfn(phys_addr)))
> > return (void __iomem *)__phys_to_virt(phys_addr);
> > return __ioremap_caller(phys_addr, size, __pgprot(PROT_NORMAL),
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > index 5d9550fdb9cf..26045e9adbd7 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ void set_swapper_pgd(pgd_t *pgdp, pgd_t pgd)
> > pgprot_t phys_mem_access_prot(struct file *file, unsigned long pfn,
> > unsigned long size, pgprot_t vma_prot)
> > {
> > - if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
> > + if (!pfn_is_map_memory(pfn))
> > return pgprot_noncached(vma_prot);
> > else if (file->f_flags & O_SYNC)
> > return pgprot_writecombine(vma_prot);
> >
>
> As discussed, in the future it would be nice if we could just rely on the
> memmap state. There are cases where pfn_is_map_memory() will now be slower
> than pfn_valid() -- e.g., we don't check for valid_section() in case of
> CONFIG_SPARSEMEM. This would apply where pfn_valid() would have returned
> "0".
>
> As we're not creating the direct map, kern_addr_valid() shouldn't need love.
> It'd be some kind of ugly if some generic code used by arm64 would be
> relying in case of arm64 on pfn_valid() to return the expected result; I
> doubt it.
No doubt there is a room for further improvement in this area.
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Thanks!
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-21 5:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-20 9:09 [PATCH v1 0/4] arm64: drop pfn_valid_within() and simplify pfn_valid() Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 9:09 ` [PATCH v1 1/4] include/linux/mmzone.h: add documentation for pfn_valid() Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 9:22 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 12:57 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 12:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 9:09 ` [PATCH v1 2/4] memblock: update initialization of reserved pages Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 13:56 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 15:03 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 15:18 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 15:25 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 9:09 ` [PATCH v1 3/4] arm64: decouple check whether pfn is in linear map from pfn_valid() Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 15:57 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-21 5:32 ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2021-04-20 9:09 ` [PATCH v1 4/4] arm64: drop pfn_valid_within() and simplify pfn_valid() Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 16:00 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-21 5:52 ` Mike Rapoport
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=YH+5ByJUSSXY3kU5@kernel.org \
--to=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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