All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
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.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
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.


  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-21  5:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 48+ 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 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20  9:09 ` 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  9:09   ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20  9:09   ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20  9:22   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20  9:22     ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20  9:22     ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 12:57     ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 12:57       ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 12:57       ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 12:58       ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 12:58         ` David Hildenbrand
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  9:09   ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20  9:09   ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 13:56   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 13:56     ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 13:56     ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 15:03     ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 15:03       ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 15:03       ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 15:18       ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 15:18         ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 15:18         ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 15:25         ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 15:25           ` Mike Rapoport
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  9:09   ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20  9:09   ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 15:57   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 15:57     ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 15:57     ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-21  5:32     ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2021-04-21  5:32       ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-21  5:32       ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20  9:09 ` [PATCH v1 4/4] arm64: drop pfn_valid_within() and simplify pfn_valid() Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20  9:09   ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20  9:09   ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-20 16:00   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 16:00     ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-20 16:00     ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-21  5:52     ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-21  5:52       ` Mike Rapoport
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=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=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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.